Vincenzo Nibali

[Afrank]

Yep, no fake PR guff from Astana

Every team's going to have some PR to explain why they are clean. But I haven't seen Astana continuously talking about the reasons why they're clean, always coming up with reasons for why it's a clean peleton now, and giving us stuff like marginal gains, warming down, high cadence, etc. to prove they're clean.

If you have examples of them continuously doing this stuff please post, and I'll admit I'm wrong. Mostly examples of the stuff I bolded.

Edit: I don't have a double standard like you posted above, I think this post shows that I don't.

 

[hfer07]

Can you say categorically Lemond rode clean?

You can't prove a negative. That's the inherent flaw when holding up one rider's performance as a clean control, to measure other rider's performance against.

Rogers worked with Ferrari like Nibali, do you give him the same benefit of the doubt?

1-) Well-can you prove he doped? cant 'you? So neither one of us is ready to comment then..
2-) Do you think of Roger & Nibali as equal, even if they both worked with the same doctor? Do you think Jan had been as equal as LA had he worked with Ferrari???
but I can tell you this: Before the EPO & The Blood transfusion era-even with the knowledge of doping back in the 80's and before that- It was evident to the public & critics who was talented & who wasn't at all- So for those who were gifted there was "always" a "progressive development" where they kept getting better to reach a peak & then begin to decline the same way.......

A rider with a constant performance with constant results throughout his career does not mean indeed he didn't dope, but surely proves he had talent "enhanced" by it to work properly in the Pro ranks-the question here is how much dope can make you a "champion"? Can even Wiggo be properly called a Champion at all?

Another point we must differentiate here is also the "levels of doping" which is now related to how "funded" is the Pro team the athlete is riding for

 

[Dr. Maserati]

These ones, Doc

What? I have no interest in another poster.
What double standards are employed by the 2 teams, which is what you were responding to.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Every team's going to have some PR to explain why they are clean. But I haven't seen Astana continuously talking about the reasons why they're clean, always coming up with reasons for why it's a clean peleton now, and giving us stuff like marginal gains, warming down, high cadence, etc. to prove they're clean.

If you have examples of them continuously doing this stuff please post, and I'll admit I'm wrong. Mostly examples of the stuff I bolded.

If you don't like their media soundbites, don't read them. As you say every team does it, but Sky does it more than most. It doesn't make them worse dopers, that's just bringing personal bias to the party.

A cheat is a cheat. I know it's the done thing to demonise Sky since loads of fans don't like them, but you can't on one hand condemn them and then say another team isn't as bad despite the fact you believe them to be dopers.

 

[JimmyFingers]

What? I have no interest in another poster.
What double standards are employed by the 2 teams, which is what you were responding to.

Read my posts. I wasn't referencing the team's double standards, but some posters here. Helps if you do this first.

 

[JimmyFingers]

1-) Well-can you prove he doped? cant 'you? So neither one of us is ready to comment then..
2-) Do you think of Roger & Nibali as equal, even if they both worked with the same doctor? Do you think Jan had been as equal as LA had he worked with Ferrari???
but I can tell you this: Before the EPO & The Blood transfusion era-even with the knowledge of doping back in the 80's and before that- It was evident to the public & critics who was talented & who wasn't at all- So for those who were gifted there was "always" a "progressive development" where they kept getting better to reach a peak & then begin to decline the same way.......

A rider with a constant performance with constant results throughout his career does not mean indeed he didn't dope, but surely proves he had talent "enhanced" by it to work properly in the Pro ranks-the question here is how much dope can make you a "champion"? Can even Wiggo be properly called a Champion at all?

Another point we must differentiate here is also the "levels of doping" which is now related to how "funded" is the Pro team the athlete is riding for

I don't know or think Lemond doped, just using him to illustrate we can never be certain about any rider's performance at any stage of his career.

 

[Afrank]

If you don't like their media soundbites, don't read them. As you say every team does it, but Sky does it more than most. It doesn't make them worse dopers, that's just bringing personal bias to the party.

A cheat is a cheat. I know it's the done thing to demonise Sky since loads of fans don't like them, but you can't on one hand condemn them and then say another team isn't as bad despite the fact you believe them to be dopers.

Sky doing it more makes them more annoying, so I like that Astana does not give us as much PR as Sky. I condemn both of them for the possible doping they may be doing.

 

[del1962]

The think is with a past high profile cheat at the helm, if Astana came out about being clean everyone would point at him, which is why though I hope Nibali is clean I don't have as much confidence as in a ztp team

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Read my posts. I wasn't referencing the team's double standards, but some posters here. Helps if you do this first.

But Jimmy, I was referencing the teams double standards, helps if you read my post.
So, I will ask again, does Astana have a ZTP?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

So in your Opinion- Greg Lemond's "steady progression" is meaningless?

Nibali's steady progression is meaningless because all data points are doped by Schumi for all we know. If a rider was seeing Ferrari years ago, you can flush your "steady progression" down the crapper. Being a Ferrari client = doper.

 

[del1962]

But Jimmy, I was referencing the teams double standards, helps if you read my post.
So, I will ask again, does Astana have a ZTP?

Of course they aren't a ztp they have a high profile doper on the managerial team, just like Team Saxo-Tinkov, however they claim to be clean though or they could not be on the world tour

 

[The Hitch]

Those who are arguing that you cannot tell how suspicious a rider is based on performance need to think about it for a second.

Yes, its true it is difficult to judge a riders suspicion just by looking at progression if that progression is steady.

However Riisesque progressions do heavily imply doping because it is simply unnatural for someone's physical capabilities to change overnight in mid or late 20's.
Same way its unnatural for someone who is 1m 70 at the age of 18 and 1m 71 at the age of 25 to suddenly measure 1m 95 in height a year later.


The analogy i would use is lying in a police interview. If someone is caught lying to the police in an investigation that heavily increases their chances that they commited some crime.

But does telling the truth make someone 100% innocent?

No it doesn't.
And in the same way moderate improvements do not make someone 100% innocent eg Nibali, but rapid overnight ones, DO heavily imply something isnt right.

Its possible that someone is lying but innocent and its possible that someone had sudden late improvements without doping. In both cases however it is very rare and takes rather extraordinary stories and background to explain it.

Funnily, Sky claim to through pure extraordinary coincidence to have just chanced upon those 3, "1 in a million" guys who have those late improvements naturally, and all have their own extraordinary stories and reasons behind it.

 

[hfer07]

Nibali's steady progression is meaningless because all data points are doped by Schumi for all we know. If a rider was seeing Ferrari years ago, you can flush your "steady progression" down the crapper. Being a Ferrari client = doper.

the same goes for Leipheimer, as equal a Evans right? Both are linked to Ferrari & yet they're completely opposites with abysmal difference in talent & results....
bottom line: Ferrari ain't the answer to talent..

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

the same goes for Leipheimer, as equal a Evans right? Both are linked to Ferrari & yet they're completely opposites with abysmal difference in talent & results....
bottom line: Ferrari ain't the answer to talent..

What's your point? Nibali is probably talented so it's alright for him to dope?

 

[The Hitch]

Every team's going to have some PR to explain why they are clean. But I haven't seen Astana continuously talking about the reasons why they're clean, always coming up with reasons for why it's a clean peleton now, and giving us stuff like marginal gains, warming down, high cadence, etc. to prove they're clean.

If you have examples of them continuously doing this stuff please post, and I'll admit I'm wrong. Mostly examples of the stuff I bolded.

Edit: I don't have a double standard like you posted above, I think this post shows that I don't.

The problem is not that sky claim to be clean. The problem is that Sky claim to have made cycling clean themselves. Which is a far more outrageous position to take and the point that is really worthy of special criticism.

Wiggins and Bailsford and Kerrison dont just claim to have won clean, they say that they "showed it could be done"

They claim everyone else is copying them.

Bailsford claims his own attacking cycling is dirty and his cycling style - US PS trains are a sign of cleanlines.

Amazingly bailsford and kerrison even see fit to say that other teams arent able to ride clean as well as sky they have been too reliant on doping in their training.


So its not that they claim to be clean. Its that they claim to be the vanguard of the the battle for cleanliness in sport and demand respect and praise for it.

 

[del1962]

The Hitch, there is a sky thread for you to discuss your pet hate.

And don't ever change my quote again please.

 

[DirtyWorks]

These ones, Doc

As Afrank posted, you are missing some important information because there is no double standard.

 

[hfer07]

What's your point? Nibali is probably talented so it's alright for him to dope?

Of course isn't right "in Principle" but is it right among the Pro ranks? you may have to ask him that question...
my point is in response to the continuing denial of some folks here to the belief of "steady progress" is only the result -or rather only acquired by no other means but dope- regardless true talent... That's why I'm using the Evans/LL comparison--even better the Nibali/Rogers to show you that if we put all 4 dopers together working with the same doctor- you have only two with better & -believe it or not- "steady progress & results...... then I ask again - WHY?

 

[The Hitch]

The Hitch, there is a sky thread for you to discuss your pet hate.

.

10 pages of Sky and Nibali, I think i have a right to take part in the ongoing discussion thank you very much.

And don't ever change my quote again please

Rich coming from someone who changed Pinottis quotes attacking Armstrong to make him look like a Armstrong defender, because you were upset at the fact that people see wiggos brown nosing of armstrong as a bad thing.

Unlike you i made it clear i was changing your quote for purposes of mockery.

You actually tried to pass of pinotis quotes as something else in a weak attempt to get people to hate him

 

[Big Doopie]

So in your Opinion- Greg Lemond's "steady progression" is meaningless?

Omg, how stupid can you really choose to be?

First off I said last 23 years (i.e. with the arrival of generalized blood/oxygen doping). Before that the natural heirarchy was identifiable.

Once epo and blood doping altered and forever confused the natural hierarchy, yes it is impossible to gauge a steady progression in talent. That is simply scientific fact. Sorry to break it to you. That is not to say a certain rider may indeed be naturally talented. It is just simply scientifically impossible to gauge it from any so-called "steady progression" because the results have been so tarnished by unknowable data.

Those who hold to "steady progression" in this particular era of cycling are most likely desperately trying to hang on to believing in a certain rider. It is an emotional thing. Not one derived from logic.

 

[Big Doopie]

Very true. Folks get things mixed up.

Sudden transformation is very suspicious. But while steady improvement does not raise eyebrows, that does not mean a person is not doping to the eyeballs.

Exactly. +1.

 

[Big Doopie]

Nibali's steady progression is meaningless because all data points are doped by Schumi for all we know. If a rider was seeing Ferrari years ago, you can flush your "steady progression" down the crapper. Being a Ferrari client = doper.

Bingo. Yes. +1.

 

[DirtyWorks]

So in your Opinion- Greg Lemond's "steady progression" is meaningless?

I don't know if you can call Lemond's progress steady. He was dominant in every age category at the worldwide level, then joined the Pros and was dominant there too.

 

[JimmyFingers]

But Jimmy, I was referencing the teams double standards, helps if you read my post.
So, I will ask again, does Astana have a ZTP?

Strawman: completely different discussion, so frankly I don't care what you're referencing.

 

[hfer07]

Omg, how stupid can you really choose to be?

BE CAREFUL

First off I said last 23 years (i.e. with the arrival of generalized blood/oxygen doping). Before that the natural heirarchy was identifiable.

But I agree with you a 100%- perhaps you need to read my responses after yours to confirm it-

Once epo and blood doping altered and forever confused the natural hierarchy, yes it is impossible to gauge a steady progression in talent. That is simply scientific fact. Sorry to break it to you.

My answer to that is Michael Rogers- and you well know why I'm using it to refute your opinion

That is not to say a certain rider may indeed be naturally talented.
It is just simply scientifically impossible to gauge it from any so-called "steady progression" because the results have been so tarnished by unknowable data

then let me ask you something- If the data is so fvcked up & is "scientific impossible" to determine "steady progress"- then why team SKY & many other teams are getting so obsessed & inclined to depend on "Data" while- lets say "Nibali" refuses that approach? For then formulate any kind of "progress" in any "scientific approach" there must be "certain values/number/data" as a "foundation" to determine how far can an athlete be "pushed/enhanced/trained/whatever to begin with--- Am I wrong?- then you
put those outstanding numbers/data together embodied in Froome during T-A to realized those things meant nothing against another doper who fairly beat him-- don't you think something called T.A.L.E.N.T. made a huge difference???

Those who hold to "steady progression" in this particular era of cycling are most likely desperately trying to hang on to believing in a certain rider. It is an emotional thing. Not one derived from logic.

Is absolutely a 100% true when your belief in a certain rider blinds you from reality-In my case- I do believe Nibali dopes-but i'm certain his talent & skills prevail further than his "medical program" because of his "steady & progressive development accompanied with equal results"