Vino bought the 2010 LBL?

[Ryo Hazuki]

The Vino brigade, please tell me how this isn't indicative of Vino paying Kolobnev to lose:



Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-the-UCI-for-investigation.aspx#ixzz2BHHZpOGx

where does it say kolobnev had to lose? they probably made a deal that the winner paid the loser and kolobnev was waiting for his money. thus the letter. you are a total **** if you think kolobnev would lose lbl for 150.000$ when he was making 5x as much as that in a year

 

[Descender]

why? he's been caught once in his career.

I think I explained myself already. He is a patological cheater and a cancer to this sport.

 

[Descender]

where does it say kolobnev had to lose? they probably made a deal that the winner paid the loser and kolobnev was waiting for his money. thus the letter. you are a total **** if you think kolobnev would lose lbl for 150.000$ when he was making 5x as much as that in a year

Is it really necessary to resort to vulgar ad hominems?

"Do you remember well, I had a good chance…” Kolobnev allegedly wrote on April 26th 2010, the day after the race. “Even my wife was disappointed that I finished second… Now I’m waiting patiently…”

What is the purpose and meaning of that sentence if the agreement was merely to pay the second, whoever he was?

I find it hard to believe how strong delusions can be to tear down.

 

[cineteq]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cGK25uZwpc

Obviously you missed my point. What else can we expect from a bookie anyway?

 

[jens_attacks]

The Vino brigade, please tell me how this isn't indicative of Vino paying Kolobnev to lose:



Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-the-UCI-for-investigation.aspx#ixzz2BHHZpOGx

seems like perico must be shiiting himself now


the gutter press discovered a cycling tradition. next, they will find out the big mysteries of drafting or goodness me maybe even that the wheels are round

whatever sells those papers
but i find really incredible what italian prosecutors do....how the hell is that in their attributions? really looks to me they fight "crime".

 

[Descender]

seems like perico must be shiiting himself now


the gutter press discovered a cycling tradition. next, they will find out the big mysteries of drafting or goodness me maybe even that the wheels are round

whatever sells those papers
but i find really incredible what italian prosecutors do....how the hell is that in their attributions? really looks to me they fight "crime".

Let me know when you have any real argument.

 

[hrotha]

If this happens all the time, how come Kolobnev told Vino he wouldn't have done it for anybody else?

This doesn't look like your regular agreement to cooperate. This looks like plain old race throwing. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't a fanboy.

 

[Altitude]

The real outrage is that those emails were somehow leaked to the public. Races are bought all the time, always have been. Move along folks.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

What is the purpose and meaning of that sentence if the agreement was merely to pay the second, whoever he was?

I find it hard to believe how strong delusions can be to tear down.

That sentence can mean a "I did help you and without me you might not have made it."

Also that last sentence doesn't do your argument any good. This has nothing to do with delusions (and why would you want to tear down delusions, I think you want to cause them, not tear them down). I don't care if Vino paid for any races or not. I care about the excitement he caused. If he had to pay for it than I consider that money well spent.

 

[Descender]

That sentence can mean a "I did help you and without me you might not have made it."

Also that last sentence doesn't do your argument any good. This has nothing to do with delusions (and why would you want to tear down delusions, I think you want to cause them, not tear them down). I don't care if Vino paid for any races or not. I care about the excitement he caused. If he had to pay for it than I consider that money well spent.

When you set yourself to write this post, was your primary purpose to say as many outrageous things per sentence as possible?

 

[Afrank]

That sentence can mean a "I did help you and without me you might not have made it."

Also that last sentence doesn't do your argument any good. This has nothing to do with delusions (and why would you want to tear down delusions, I think you want to cause them, not tear them down). I don't care if Vino paid for any races or not. I care about the excitement he caused. If he had to pay for it than I consider that money well spent.

So basically, Contador could have paid Rodriguez and Valverde to let him win on Fuente De and it would be all fine just because it was exciting. Brilliant logic there . Paying someone to win a race doesn't make a victory a real victory.

really never heard of that? at least in netherlands commentatoprs talked about if oftenly. also former cyclists. happens in pretty much every race. nothign wrong with it either as both guys will give it a shot to win and the winner pays the loser, so he's not entirely emptyhanded after the effort

Paying someone to work with you does make more sense if both of the riders would have payed the other if they won. But I would think that you wouldn't have to pay the other guy to work with you in as big a race as LBL. They would easily be able to figure out that they would have a better chance working together then they would having to compete with all the guys in the chase. Unless of course Vino and Kolobnev are obsessed with money and refused to work together unless they got some money out of it.

The real outrage is that those emails were somehow leaked to the public. Races are bought all the time, always have been. Move along folks.

Even if it is something that goes on a lot, that doesn't make it a good thing. And it doesn't mean we should just turn a blind eye to it. Buying a race is akin to doping IMO.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Let me know when you have any real argument.

I'm still waiting for yours

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

If this happens all the time, how come Kolobnev told Vino he wouldn't have done it for anybody else?

This doesn't look like your regular agreement to cooperate. This looks like plain old race throwing. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't a fanboy.

it coul;d very well mean that without vino kolobnev would not not have collaborated in teh escape as much as he did.

again, 150.000 euros is peanuts for kolobnev compared to his salary. explain that to me

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

So basically, Contador could have paid Rodriguez and Valverde to let him win on Fuente De and it would be all fine just because it was exciting. Brilliant logic there . Paying someone to win a race doesn't make a victory a real victory.



Paying someone to work with you does make more sense if both of the riders would have payed the other if they won. But I would think that you wouldn't have to pay the other guy to work with you in as big a race as LBL. They would easily be able to figure out that they would have a better chance working together then they would having to compete with all the guys in the chase. Unless of course Vino and Kolobnev are obsessed with money and refused to work together unless they got some money out of it.


Even if it is something that goes on a lot, that doesn't make it a good thing. And it doesn't mean we should just turn a blind eye to it. Buying a race is akin to doping IMO.

you really don't understand, do you? the bigger the race. the more the other has to pay because winning a big race means big money (contract).

 

[coinneach]

Sounds like Vino is your basic sportsman then. Because they all have that killer instinct that makes them want to win no matter what. That instinct is what makes them that good.

That instinct is what makes him bad: he was so blatant in the 07 TdF, if there had been more like him, cycling would be in an even worse place than it is today.

 

[Descender]

I'm still waiting for yours

It's right here on this thread.

Not that I have any hopes of convincing you. If you fail to see what is wrong with adulterating a sports competition by selling and buying it for money, then I'm afraid we have nothing to talk about.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

So basically, Contador could have paid Rodriguez and Valverde to let him win on Fuente De and it would be all fine just because it was exciting. Brilliant logic there . Paying someone to win a race doesn't make a victory a real victory.

As long as they had been more careful with their emails, yep. Because the only reason why we are having a discussion about Vino's LBL win is that we actually know about it in this case. While in the countless other races where this might have happened, we just don't know. And besides, I'm coming from the Vino paid Kolobnev to work with him angle, so your comparison doesn't really work. Although it wouldn't surprise me to see some money going from Contador to Tiralongo.

 

[Afrank]

As long as they had been more careful with their emails, yep. Because the only reason why we are having a discussion about Vino's LBL win is that we actually know about it in this case. While in the countless other races where this might have happened, we just don't know. And besides, I'm coming from the Vino paid Kolobnev to work with him angle, so your comparison doesn't really work. Although it wouldn't surprise me to see some money going from Contador to Tiralongo.

Ok, gotcha. Just turn a blind eye to any kind of corruption in cycling and let it continue without doing anything to try and make it better. Sounds like a good motto for the UCI, now that I think about it.

you really don't understand, do you? the bigger the race. the more the other has to pay because winning a big race means big money (contract).

Missed my point completely there, I don't think paying the other guy for their work should be necessary to make them work with you. I think the chance of winning a monument should be enough to get both riders to work together without needing an exchange of money. I don't doubt that paying another rider to work with you is something that goes on but I am not sure if it is what went on in this case.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

Ok, gotcha. Just turn a blind eye to any kind of corruption in cycling and let it continue without doing anything to try and make it better. Sounds like a good motto for the UCI, now that I think about it.

How would you make it better tho? Give Uran a 6 month ban because he was looking over his shoulder a bit too long? Take away Vino's LBL win because he paid his friend for working with him? Take away Wiggins' Tour win because Froome was clearly better? Take away the Schlecks 2nd and 3rd place in LBL because why would any smart rider go with Gilbert to the finish without placing any attacks, unless Gilbert paid them?
Of all the problems cycling has, I don't think this should be a top priority. The top priority can be found in the clinic and everything that is related to that. The possibility (because it still isn't proven) that Vino bought LBL isn't enough for me to consider it a major problem.

 

[El Pistolero]

How would you make it better tho? Give Uran a 6 month ban because he was looking over his shoulder a bit too long? Take away Vino's LBL win because he paid his friend for working with him? Take away Wiggins' Tour win because Froome was clearly better? Take away the Schlecks 2nd and 3rd place in LBL because why would any smart rider go with Gilbert to the finish without placing any attacks, unless Gilbert paid them?
Of all the problems cycling has, I don't think this should be a top priority. The top priority can be found in the clinic and everything that is related to that. The possibility (because it still isn't proven) that Vino bought LBL isn't enough for me to consider it a major problem.

Schlecks always race like this, so your conclusion is wrong. There's no proof for the Olympics, so that's wrong as well. Wiggins didn't pay Froome to wait and he's his team-mate.

The e-mails between Kolobnev and Vino however leave little doubt.

 

[Afrank]

How would you make it better tho? Give Uran a 6 month ban because he was looking over his shoulder a bit too long? Take away Vino's LBL win because he paid his friend for working with him? Take away Wiggins' Tour win because Froome was clearly better? Take away the Schlecks 2nd and 3rd place in LBL because why would any smart rider go with Gilbert to the finish without placing any attacks, unless Gilbert paid them?
Of all the problems cycling has, I don't think this should be a top priority. The top priority can be found in the clinic and everything that is related to that. The possibility (because it still isn't proven) that Vino bought LBL isn't enough for me to consider it a major problem.

What pistolera said. There is no proof of any wrong doing in any of those cases. Yet there is in the Vino case. Paying someone to lose a race like the emails indicate is not something that we should turn a blind eye towards. When there is proof of it then something should be done about it. Making the sport cleaner should be the top priority, but I don't see why we shouldn't try to stop riders from buying races as well. I see buying a race as just another form of doping.

 

[hiero2]

The rumor of riders buying races is as old as bike racing.

What are the chances those who were paid off will say anything

As many accusations that have been hurled over the years there have been no action on any of them (that I remember of).

Maybe the ultimate dope of bike racing, hard cold cash.

Yup, been around just as long as bike racing, just like dopage!

. . . If you fail to see what is wrong with adulterating a sports competition by selling and buying it for money, then I'm afraid we have nothing to talk about.

You know, that is an interesting thought. If this were boxing, I'd care. If it were horse-racing, baseball, soccer, the Olympics, ANYTHING except pro wrestling, which has obviously been nothing more than staged entertainment for at least 50 years - anything else - and I would care. Pro cycling? I don't care. Why? I don't know.

And I've thought about it, but not really coming up with an answer. Maybe it is because, for the most part, you aren't changing the outcome that much. The rider who pays has to be one of the ones in there at the end anyway, so they are strong. Maybe it just seems like they are just making an informal agreement to work together for one rider, like an ad hoc team, instead of throwing a match. It would be like a basketball player trying to change a game by paying an opponent to help him score two baskets in the 3rd quarter. It might affect the overall, but just as likely would not.

I care about doping - but that is because since steroids and O2 stuff changes the game. Before that, I thought it was stupid, not critical. Like Fignon's quote.

 

[Alpehue]

I love Vino..

But its never really been a secret he purchases victories... I mean not as well known as that armstrong was doped, but i think quite a lot of people kinda assumed he did...

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

I love Vino..

But its never really been a secret he purchases victories... I mean not as well known as that armstrong was doped, but i think quite a lot of people kinda assumed he did...

pls tell the world

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Ok, gotcha. Just turn a blind eye to any kind of corruption in cycling and let it continue without doing anything to try and make it better. Sounds like a good motto for the UCI, now that I think about it.



Missed my point completely there, I don't think paying the other guy for their work should be necessary to make them work with you. I think the chance of winning a monument should be enough to get both riders to work together without needing an exchange of money. I don't doubt that paying another rider to work with you is something that goes on but I am not sure if it is what went on in this case.

:facepalm: that what I meant. you are clueless. it is not about making the other rider work with you. but having something in return in case of losing the race. that deal is as old as cycling itself