Vino bought the 2010 LBL?

[El Pistolero]

uci have said to have received documents but it's not enough proove for juridical action as I predicted here. so goodbye everyone

That's pretty much proof he cheated.

 

[Netserk]

That's pretty much proof he cheated.

So your precious Gilbert can get the win despite not finishing on the podium

 

[El Pistolero]

So your precious Gilbert can get the win despite not finishing on the podium

I don't care about a victory like this. It's just time that Vino got punished, he ruined the race. And Kolobnev is a cheap ***** for selling out like that.

Anyway, UCI hasn't dropped charges, Ryo is speaking BS again. Investigation is just about to start actually.

But if buying races is allowed then you won't be offended when Phil buys him self a ****load of races next year because he's richer than 99.99% of the peloton. It's a good old tradition right? Let's already declare him winner of all the Monuments.

 

[Netserk]

I don't care about a victory like this. It's just time that Vino got punished, he ruined the race. And Kolobnev is a cheap ***** for selling out like that.

Anyway, UCI hasn't dropped charges, Ryo is speaking BS again. Investigation is just about to start actually.

But if buying races is allowed then you won't be offended when Phil buys him self a ****load of races next year because he's richer than 99.99% of the peloton. It's a good old tradition right? Let's already declare him winner of all the Monuments.

 

[El Pistolero]

Since when is it considered "crying" when someone doesn't want Monuments to be degraded? People are close to considering cycling a fake sport. If you want that then that's fine by me, but don't go insulting people. Are you 8 years old or something? Grow up.

Vinokourov could get away with murder on this forum and then people call me the fanboy lol.

 

[LaFlorecita]

 

[jens_attacks]

damn, pistolero wants really bad this edition of lbl for his man phil
i'm sure vino already let him drink some champagne from it at his home and both laughed about it.

 

[El Pistolero]

damn, pistolero wants really bad this edition of lbl for his man phil
i'm sure vino already let him drink some champagne from it at his home and both laughed about it.

No, I just don't want Monuments to be sold for cash. For all I care UCI decides to leave the winner blank. A real hard man would just beat everyone else instead of offering them money. Otherwise you get lame *** winners like Roger de Vlaeminck. People still look down on his victory.

You can compliment Vino all you want, but the fact is he was so insecure that he had to pay someone like Kolobnev. Who's biggest victory is a stage in Paris-Nice.

 

[Altitude]

I don't care about a victory like this. It's just time that Vino got punished, he ruined the race. And Kolobnev is a cheap ***** for selling out like that.

Anyway, UCI hasn't dropped charges, Ryo is speaking BS again. Investigation is just about to start actually.

But if buying races is allowed then you won't be offended when Phil buys him self a ****load of races next year because he's richer than 99.99% of the peloton. It's a good old tradition right? Let's already declare him winner of all the Monuments.

Nobody was offended when he bought LBL 2011 from the Schleck brothers.

 

[hrotha]

Some pretty hilarious deflection going on here you guys. Pisti and Gilbert are not the issue here.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

Some pretty hilarious deflection going on here you guys. Pisti and Gilbert are not the issue here.

agreed, the issue here is that someone here just can't understand that this is how things work, and that this is only brought up in the off season so that some forum members got something to complain about.

 

[El Pistolero]

Things change. Besides, Eddy Merckx would never sell a victory, so it's not how things worked. People begged him to let them win for a change, but he didn't care. He might be a cheat as well, but selling a victory? That's low. We're not talking about the winner paying the members of the breakaway for their co-operation, but about actually selling/buying a victory. There's a fundamental difference between the two. One of them is ok, the other isn't.

 

[The Hitch]

I don't care about a victory like this. It's just time that Vino got punished, he ruined the race. And Kolobnev is a cheap ***** for selling out like that.

Anyway, UCI hasn't dropped charges, Ryo is speaking BS again. Investigation is just about to start actually.

But if buying races is allowed then you won't be offended when Phil buys him self a ****load of races next year because he's richer than 99.99% of the peloton. It's a good old tradition right? Let's already declare him winner of all the Monuments.

Lets not declare phil the winner of jack ****. he is not going to win Paris Roubaix even if he pays off the entire peloton and in case you missed it Vino actually managed to get himself up there towards the end of Liege Bastogne Liege, something Phil was not able to do in a single monument last year.

And its not like he had Cancellara with him, it was frickin Kolobnev against the 3 top riders of the moment.

And its not like Kolobnev did a froome for him either, he may have given it all but they shared the workload.

In other words VIno did not buy the race from scratch, he actually got himself into a position where paying 1 class B rider to take it a bit easier, managed to get him win. When has Phil ever been in such a position that you would give him more monuments?

 

[El Pistolero]

Lets not declare phil the winner of jack ****. he is not going to win Paris Roubaix even if he pays off the entire peloton and in case you missed it Vino actually managed to get himself up there towards the end of Liege Bastogne Liege, something Phil was not able to do in a single monument last year.

And its not like he had Cancellara with him, it was frickin Kolobnev against the 3 top riders of the moment.

And its not like Kolobnev did a froome for him either, he may have given it all but they shared the workload.

In other words VIno did not buy the race from scratch, he actually got himself into a position where paying 1 class B rider to take it a bit easier, managed to get him win. When has Phil ever been in such a position that you would give him more monuments?

What on earth are you talking about?

So according to your stupid logic Phil could have just bought him self a MSR victory in 2011 and you wouldn't complain if he offered €2.000.000 to Gossie and Cancellara. You must be pretty stupid if you'd accept that. Or just too much up Vino's ***.

Vino bought him self a win and without that he would've most likely finished second. A place no one remembers. Being second is not good enough, you have to be first. He achieved jack **** to say it with your words.

What does Cancellara have to do with this anyway? Kolobnev is better than Cancellara in hilly races.

I guess you would be cool with Pozzato buying him self a Ronde van Vlaanderen victory as well. After all, if you're able to finish second you're apparently entitled to a win if you have enough money.

What does Phil's year have to do with this by the way? In case you didn't notice, he won the WC and it wasn't by paying Kolobnev money...

I have to agree with hrorta, these ad hominems are pathetic and laughable. Phil has nothing to do with this. For me LBL 2010 doesn't have a winner. Which is indeed sad as Gilbert was definitely stronger than both Vino and Kolobnev that day. Oh well, he's richer now, so he can buy him self a couple of nice victories next year according to the Vino fanboys. All is cool.

 

[Afrank]

agreed, the issue here is that someone here just can't understand that this is how things work, and that this is only brought up in the off season so that some forum members got something to complain about.

Yeah and doping also used to be how things worked, but look at all of the riders that have been banned for that and all the results that have been stripped. How is buying a race any different to doping? No matter what you say buying a race is still cheating.

And this is not being brought up because it is the off season or as something to complain about. It is being brought up because new evidence has emerged.

If it had been any other rider in Vino's position half the people on the forum would be ripping into them. the hardcore Vino fans are actually reminding me of the people that still support Armstrong.

Lets not declare phil the winner of jack ****. he is not going to win Paris Roubaix even if he pays off the entire peloton and in case you missed it Vino actually managed to get himself up there towards the end of Liege Bastogne Liege, something Phil was not able to do in a single monument last year.

And its not like he had Cancellara with him, it was frickin Kolobnev against the 3 top riders of the moment.

And its not like Kolobnev did a froome for him either, he may have given it all but they shared the workload.

In other words VIno did not buy the race from scratch, he actually got himself into a position where paying 1 class B rider to take it a bit easier, managed to get him win. When has Phil ever been in such a position that you would give him more monuments?

yeah, Vino did the work and would have been 1st or 2nd no matter what. But this is not the issue, the issue is that he cheated and bought the race, it doesn't matter that it was a class B rider he was competing with. He payed him off for the race and therefore does not deserve to be called the winner. The winner for 2010 should be left blank or Vino and kolobnev should tie for second. But neither deserves to be called the winner.

 

[Magnus]

Yeah and doping also used to be how things worked, but look at all of the riders that have been banned for that and all the results that have been stripped. How is buying a race any different to doping? No matter what you say buying a race is still cheating.

Buying a race is different from doping in the rider who sells the race is agreeing to selling the race. A clean rider doesn't agree with or even know about other riders' use of doping.

 

[Afrank]

Buying a race is different from doping in the rider who sells the race is agreeing to selling the race. A clean rider doesn't agree with or even know about other riders' use of doping.

Yes, but my point is that it is just as much a form of cheating as doping is.

 

[Magnus]

Yes, but my point is that it is just as much a form of cheating as doping is.

If you mean cheating in the sense that it breaks the rules, then yes it is. And so is wearing a rain coat that isn't transparent or the same colour as your normal jersey. And so riding a saddle that is 279 mm long. And and and...

But it's more or less a victim-less crime (I say more or less because you might argue that the audience might feel "robbed of a true race", I personally think that is BS though). Kolobnev isn't a victim. He could have refused the deal. He probably accepted the deal because he thought he would have lost anyway.

Doping is (obviously) not a victim-less crime.

 

[Altitude]

Yes, but my point is that it is just as much a form of cheating as doping is.

No, it's really not. When you buy a race you're not cheating anybody (except maybe yourself). It is an agreement between you and another rider(s). Totally different from doping. Not even close.

 

[cineteq]

When you buy a race you're not cheating anybody (except maybe yourself). It is an agreement between you and another rider(s).

So you're not cheating the fans? Bottom line, buying races is a form of cheating.

 

[Afrank]

If you mean cheating in the sense that it breaks the rules, then yes it is. And so is wearing a rain coat that isn't transparent or the same colour as your normal jersey. And so riding a saddle that is 279 mm long. And and and...

But it's more or less a victim-less crime (I say more or less because you might argue that the audience might feel "robbed of a true race", I personally think that is BS though). Kolobnev isn't a victim. He could have refused the deal. He probably accepted the deal because he thought he would have lost anyway.

Doping is (obviously) not a victim-less crime.

I mean cheating as in the sense that it alters the race. Just breaking the rules is not cheating unless it gives you a distinct advantage (holding onto a car for example gives you a advantage, wearing a rain coat that isn't clear does not give anyone an advantage). Sure Vino might have won anyways, but maybe Kolobnev would have gotten the better of him (he said himself he was feeling great that day). We've seen in many many races the guy everyone expects to win lose out to another guy. Boonen v. Vanmarcke or Rabottini v. Purito for example. Nobody has any idea who would have won that race had Kolobnev not excepted the bribe.

I agree with you that Kolobnev is no victim, as far as I am concerned, both of them are at fault here.

 

[Altitude]

So you're not cheating the fans? Bottom line, buying races is a form of cheating.

What the fans don't know the fans don't mind.

 

[coinneach]

Its a really interesting thread this; and goes right to the heart of pro-cycling.
Its much better than any on the Clinic, where you basically have believers and non believers slagging eachother off.
It also touches on cycling's other great secret (after drugs) which is far more powerful: MONEY!
Being a fan for some time, I know most of the rules: many new fans of cycling don't understand why team mates don't try to win against each other.
I know about being paid (in cash or quid pro quo) to chase a break down etc.
But what these two riders did (and nobody can seriously doubt that they did) goes beyond acceptable to me.
I though people were booing at the finish because they didn't like Vino: maybe they understood what had gone on better than I did at the time.
(Even after thinking about the Olympics for a couple of days, I don't think the same thing happened there though.
Uran is not a good finisher, but you couldn't really make up what a mess he made of that.)

 

[Magnus]

I mean cheating as in the sense that it alters the race. Just breaking the rules is not cheating unless it gives you a distinct advantage (holding onto a car for example gives you a advantage, wearing a rain coat that isn't clear does not give anyone an advantage). Sure Vino might have won anyways, but maybe Kolobnev would have gotten the better of him (he said himself he was feeling great that day). We've seen in many many races the guy everyone expects to win lose out to another guy. Boonen v. Vanmarcke or Rabottini v. Purito for example. Nobody has any idea who would have won that race had Kolobnev not excepted the bribe.

I agree with you that Kolobnev is no victim, as far as I am concerned, both of them are at fault here.

A gc contender paying a fellow breakaway rider with a stage win to cooperate alters the race and gives the gc contender a significant advantage...

Btw: where in the uci regulations does it say that you can't pay off another rider?

 

[El Pistolero]

The problem is the attitude of said riders. Vino would pay money for someone else to lose a race on purpose. That shows he'll do whatever it takes to win. That makes it fairly easy to assume he wouldn't mind taking dope. After all, he probably convinced himself he doesn't cheat because everyone else does/did it.

Kolobnev was also the fastest man on paper. He won the sprint of the group behind Gilbert and Samu Sanchez in 2009 which also included Alexandr Vinokourov.

The strongest/smartest rider should win. Not the guy with the most money. One's financial status should have NO effect on the race. If you cannot understand that...