Vino bought the 2010 LBL?

[Magnus]

Whether you pay off your rivals or not, your financial status effects your opportunities.
Like it or not, that's how the world works.

 

[El Pistolero]

Whether you pay off your rivals or not, your financial status effects your opportunities.
Like it or not, that's how the world works.

Your prestige status might affect a race, but I fail to see how your financial status effects your opportunities. A big name will get more respect in the peloton and will get a better treatment, but I doubt that has anything to do with his financial status. You earn respect in the peloton by winning big races.

The world doesn't work with just bribery you know. Some people win fair and square.

The reason Cavendish wins more/better sprints is not because he has more money than Marcel Kittel. He's just better, for now.

Vinokourov has treated Monuments with little respect. You don't sell or buy a Monument. If he wants to fix races he should stick to criteriums.

 

[Magnus]

Your prestige status might affect a race, but I fail to see how your financial status effects your opportunities. A big name will get more respect in the peloton and will get a better treatment, but I doubt that has anything to do with his financial status. You earn respect in the peloton by winning big races.

The world doesn't work with just bribery you know. Some people win fair and square.

The reason Cavendish wins more/better sprints is not because he has more money than Marcel Kittel. He's just better, for now.

Well, since you bring up Cavendish:
If he was infinite rich and could sponsor his own team he would probably have won more than 3 stages in TdF this year.

 

[El Pistolero]

Well, since you bring up Cavendish:
If he was infinite rich and could sponsor his own team he would probably have won more than 3 stages in TdF this year.

How many cyclists do you know that sponsor their own team? Obviously the financial status of a team effects a race. I'm not talking about that. If you have good results you'll be able to join a better team with better support. If you suck you won't have a good support team around you.

Of course in the past teams have also (tried) to bribe cyclists. Take for example Frank Vandenbroucke's first stage win in the Vuelta... The team manager of his breakaway colleague asked for money to let VDB win the race. Frank VDB said "I'll think about it". A moment later he accelerated and his breakaway colleague struggled to hold his wheel. Frank returned to the team manager and said "You give ME money for him to get second or I will not protect him from the wind any longer." Not every cyclist is a sell out like Kolobnev.

 

[Magnus]

How many cyclists do you know that sponsor their own team?

About as many as I think your question is of relevance for this discussion.

 

[Afrank]

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?

A gc guy gifting a stage is nothing like buying a race. First of all it is not against the rules. Second, gifting stages has likely been part of cycling (and been an accepted part) since the sport was created. And third Gifting a stage is part of the tactics game in cycling but there is no tactical advantage in buying a race.
There is a big difference between a rider saying "help me move up on the GC and you can have the stage" and saying "I'll give you 150,000 to let me win."

Besides the situation here is a single day classic, not a stage race. So that argument really isn't relevant here.

 

[Magnus]

A gc guy gifting a stage is nothing like buying a race. First of all it is not against the rules. Second, gifting stages has likely been part of cycling (and been an accepted part) since the sport was created. And third Gifting a stage is part of the tactics game in cycling but there is no tactical advantage in buying a race.

1) You could say it's against the moral rules of sport if you don't try your hardest to win .
2) Buying races has been an accepted (by the riders) part of racing since the sport was created.
3) How is having someone to cooperate with you not a tactical advantage?
It's not like the L-B-L victory is a commodity that Kolobnev could hand over to Vino. He sold his cooperation.

There is a big difference between a rider saying "help me move up on the GC and you can have the stage" and saying "I'll give you 150,000 to let me win."

At the end of the day a stage-win is worth a certain amount in total (prize money, publicity, increased future earnings etc.).
The only difference is that in one case the price is explicitly agreed upon.

Besides the situation here is a single day classic, not a stage race. So that argument really isn't relevant here.

I assumed a more general discussion about riders paying each other off in general. Not just the specific incident.

So you think it's ok for a GC contender to pay another rider with a stage for his cooperation, but not on rider to pay another a cash amount in a one day race. OK. But then where do you draw the line?

Was the quickstep rider helping Andy in the Galibier stage ok?
Is Contador giving Tiralongo a stage for acting as his teammate even when he's not ok?

 

[Altitude]

Second, gifting stages has likely been part of cycling (and been an accepted part) since the sport was created.

So has buying/selling races.

 

[Afrank]

So has buying/selling races.

1. Do you have any proof at all of this?
2. So because it's always be done we should always turn a blind eye to it when evidence of it emerges. Sounds a lot like the "everyone was doping so it doesn't matter that Armstrong was doping too" argument.

 

[Altitude]

1. Do you have any proof at all of this?
2. So because it's always be done we should always turn a blind eye to it when evidence of it emerges. Sounds a lot like the "everyone was doping so it doesn't matter that Armstrong was doping too" argument.

Proof? It's common knowledge. Go read A Dog In A Hat.

 

[The Hitch]

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. .

The" issue" in my post was whether or not we should declare Phil Gilbert the winner of everything because El Pistollero says so.

 

[The Hitch]

What on earth are you talking about?

I am responding to this.

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.

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 ***.

according to what stupid logic? I never justified or attacked vinos actions 1 way or another. I merely pointed out flaws in your - "well Gilbert can just win any monument by rigging the entire race from the start with millions" argument, when Vino did NOT pay every rider, he paid one rider a fraction of 1 million.

And had you actually read my rather short post, rather than make up a long list of things i never said, you would have seen 1 of the things i did cover was exactly the type of example you cite here.

In your msr 2011 example, phil would have needed to pay 2 riders, including the strongest 1 day rider of our generation. But Vino did not pay Cancellara and Goss, he paid frickin Alexander Kolobnev.

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

Cancellara came up because you are so predictable i knew you would say that Gilbert could have won MSR by paying Cancellara, so i blocked you by responding to your example before you even made it.

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.

I never actually adressed any of this in my post, but if typing it up and posting it helps get it off your chest, ill try not to distrupt the process.

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.

Once again, my post was a response to the following.

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.

Im not saying 2nd place is as good as winning, what i am saying is that you cant compare rigging an entire race so that the winner is guaranteed from the start (your Gilbert can win anything with x million dollars example) to actually working and being in with a fantastic shot once the race is in its closing stages ( Vino 2010).

However, i did enjoy your pozzato example and the way you presented it, nonetheless.

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...

Phil has everything to do with it as i was responding to your comment about how phil should be named winner of every monument next year as he has a lot of money

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.

I have to agree with hrorta, these ad hominems are pathetic and laughable.

What ad hominem did i use?

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.

He might still be in debt to JI

It wasn't by paying Kolobnev money

How do you know Phil didnt buy his worlds win? You sound like those clinic novices who cry that the rider from their country cant be doping and they know this 100% because people from their country are so great.

I mean this is the same Philipe Gilbert who is still Vinos best friend yes?

In fact looking at the *** behaviour of the German team who worked their asses off for him all day, i think there is quite a strong possibility.

 

[Afrank]

1) You could say it's against the moral rules of sport if you don't try your hardest to win .
2) Buying races has been an accepted (by the riders) part of racing since the sport was created.
3) How is having someone to cooperate with you not a tactical advantage?

1. Every rider should be trying their hardest to win legally. Without resorting to cheating.
2. Doesn't mean we should let it carry on, doping was also an accepted part of the sport at one time, should we turn a blind eye to that too?
3. It is the buying of a race that does not give you a tactical advantage. The tactics game in LBL was work together, hold off the chasers, then both riders try to sprint. Not nearly as much tactics as in a stage race. But this tactics game went out the window when Vino bought the race. It became work together, then Vino takes it. Zero competition in the final. and not much in the way of tactics.

The competition in the final that would have been there if Vino had not offered to buy the race was not there because Kolobnev sold the race. It was not his cooperation that he sold, he sold to vino a final with no competition from him.

At the end of the day a stage-win is worth a certain amount in total (prize money, publicity, increased future earnings etc.).
The only difference is that in one case the price is explicitly agreed upon.

The difference is one is illegal and considered cheating and the other is part of racing.

I assumed a more general discussion about riders paying each other off in general. Not just the specific incident.

So you think it's ok for a GC contender to pay another rider with a stage for his cooperation, but not on rider to pay another a cash amount in a one day race. OK. But then where do you draw the line?

Was the quickstep rider helping Andy in the Galibier stage ok?
Is Contador giving Tiralongo a stage for acting as his teammate even when he's not ok?

yes, we should not allow a rider to buy a race from another, this is where we draw the line. it gives the impression that as long as you have money and you can be in the final of a race you can just pay off the other guys and roll in for a zero competition win. I don't know about you but I want to see a real race, where riders are all going for the win, not selling it to the highest bidder.

 

[El Pistolero]

Lol Hitch, what nonsense you can post about Cancellara sometimes.

So, it wouldn't count if Phil had to pay Cancellara because you think he's God, but paying Kolobnev is ok. Ok, makes no sense at all. Isn't it actually worse if you have to buy off someone like Kolobnev to win a race?

Also it doesn't matter at all if you're bribing one, two or ten people. The result is the same: you're fixing the race. To say Gilbert has never been in a position like Vino where he can buy the race is insane. There's been plenty of moments. He could've bought off Pozzato for example at Milan-San Remo. Who would've brought Gilbert back had Pozzato not chased after him?

Also if you have any proof on Gilbert buying the Worlds then please give it to us. But until then, we can only work with proof. And there's enough proof for Vino to warrant an investigation. Also, a witness has stated Vino paid MULTIPLE people to win Paris-Nice back in 2003. That's a lot of bribing stories/rumours for just one cyclist...

I also fail to see what Vino's friendship with Phil has to do with this. I'm not expressing Phil's view, I'm expressing my own view. I don't speak for him, nor do I agree with everything he says or does.

Since when is Cancellara the strongest one day racer of our generation? That's a joke right?

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

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.)

the reason they booded vino at ans is ebcause belgian fans are the worst most nationalistic idiots in the world. it was sickening and kolobnev didn't act to get dropped. there is no sign of that at all. again expalin to me why kolobnev would sell winning a monument for 150.000 euros, if he could win it?

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

A gc guy gifting a stage is nothing like buying a race. First of all it is not against the rules. Second, gifting stages has likely been part of cycling (and been an accepted part) since the sport was created. And third Gifting a stage is part of the tactics game in cycling but there is no tactical advantage in buying a race.
There is a big difference between a rider saying "help me move up on the GC and you can have the stage" and saying "I'll give you 150,000 to let me win."

Besides the situation here is a single day classic, not a stage race. So that argument really isn't relevant here.

ok thank you, for proving what an utter hypocrite you are. no reason to discuss any further, it;s either both wrong or both right

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

1. Do you have any proof at all of this?
2. So because it's always be done we should always turn a blind eye to it when evidence of it emerges. Sounds a lot like the "everyone was doping so it doesn't matter that Armstrong was doping too" argument.

it's common knowledge boogerds win on la plagne rabo paid us epostal for. rabo also paid langeveld to lose the nationals to boogerd, which was blatantly on tv being spoken out. vino simply paid kolobnev for his work and the best man won.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

I am responding to this.





according to what stupid logic? I never justified or attacked vinos actions 1 way or another. I merely pointed out flaws in your - "well Gilbert can just win any monument by rigging the entire race from the start with millions" argument, when Vino did NOT pay every rider, he paid one rider a fraction of 1 million.

And had you actually read my rather short post, rather than make up a long list of things i never said, you would have seen 1 of the things i did cover was exactly the type of example you cite here.

In your msr 2011 example, phil would have needed to pay 2 riders, including the strongest 1 day rider of our generation. But Vino did not pay Cancellara and Goss, he paid frickin Alexander Kolobnev.



Cancellara came up because you are so predictable i knew you would say that Gilbert could have won MSR by paying Cancellara, so i blocked you by responding to your example before you even made it.



I never actually adressed any of this in my post, but if typing it up and posting it helps get it off your chest, ill try not to distrupt the process.




Once again, my post was a response to the following.



Im not saying 2nd place is as good as winning, what i am saying is that you cant compare rigging an entire race so that the winner is guaranteed from the start (your Gilbert can win anything with x million dollars example) to actually working and being in with a fantastic shot once the race is in its closing stages ( Vino 2010).

However, i did enjoy your pozzato example and the way you presented it, nonetheless.



Phil has everything to do with it as i was responding to your comment about how phil should be named winner of every monument next year as he has a lot of money






What ad hominem did i use?



He might still be in debt to JI



How do you know Phil didnt buy his worlds win? You sound like those clinic novices who cry that the rider from their country cant be doping and they know this 100% because people from their country are so great.

I mean this is the same Philipe Gilbert who is still Vinos best friend yes?

In fact looking at the *** behaviour of the German team who worked their asses off for him all day, i think there is quite a strong possibility.

thanks for this. it keeps being hilarious to see el pisti getting kicked in the dirt by digging his own grave all the time

 

[Magnus]

It was not his cooperation that he sold, he sold to vino a final with no competition from him.

I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

The difference is one is illegal and considered cheating and the other is part of racing.

Anybody knows where it says so?

yes, we should not allow a rider to buy a race from another, this is where we draw the line. it gives the impression that as long as you have money and you can be in the final of a race you can just pay off the other guys and roll in for a zero competition win. I don't know about you but I want to see a real race, where riders are all going for the win, not selling it to the highest bidder.

So it would have been OK if Vino had payed Kolobnev to cooperate with him until 200 m before the finish line?
When I saw L-B-L in 2010 I saw a real race.
Personally I think that buying a race is somewhat amoral and wrong in a sense but on the other hand I feel that there's not really any arguments arguing that it's wrong other than that it's wrong. Morally I think Andy paying off some random rider to help him in the Galibier stage is worse because it influences other than the two of them. On the other hand complex motives for cooperating is part of cycling tactics and (imo) a big part of what makes cycling interesting and differentiates it from other sports.
I don't think that paying someone in cool cash is so different from paying in future help/alliances or a contract at the end of the year (Kiriyenka helping team Sky at the olympics anyone? where's the thread about that!) but it obviously makes the deal more concrete/visible.

 

[El Pistolero]

the reason they booded vino at ans is ebcause belgian fans are the worst most nationalistic idiots in the world. it was sickening and kolobnev didn't act to get dropped. there is no sign of that at all. again expalin to me why kolobnev would sell winning a monument for 150.000 euros, if he could win it?

It's in the e-mails man. Do you still believe in Santa Claus as well?

Vino bought Paris-Nice for much less. Kolobnev is not a big earner and who knows what the guy wastes his cash on. He might be in debt for all we know. He clearly needs a good punishment for selling out so cheaply.

And the reason Vino got booed is because his doping past. Has little to do with being Belgian or being nationalistic idiots.

Are you too blind to see you're doing exactly the same with Oscar Sevilla in Colombia? Man, you're such a hypocrite.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

It's in the e-mails man. Do you still believe in Santa Claus as well?

Vino bought Paris-Nice for much less. Kolobnev is not a big earner and who knows what the guy wastes his cash on. He might be in debt for all we know. He clearly needs a good punishment for selling out so cheaply.

And the reason Vino got booed is because his doping past. Has little to do with being Belgian or being nationalistic idiots.

Are you too blind to see you're doing exactly the same with Oscar Sevilla in Colombia? Man, you're such a hypocrite.

always makes me day when you call me a hypocrite

and pls point it out in the emails to me, because I can't read it.

and I'm sure leukemans or museeuw would get booed too oh wait, museeuw is still often seen in national tv and seen as a hero

 

[El Pistolero]

Museeuw has only admitted to doping his entire career this year and unlike Boogerd at least came out. Leukemans didn't test positive for someone else's blood during the Tour and won a Monument after his come-back now did he? I'm sure there would've been quite some boos had he won LBL in 2009.

Ryo, I'm not here to read for you. If you can't read then don't go on a forum.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Museeuw has only admitted to doping this year and unlike Boogerd at least came out. Leukemans didn't test positive for someone else's blood during the Tour and won a Monument after his come-back now did he?

Ryo, I'm not here to read for you. If you can't read then don't go on a forum.

that's what makes the belgians so hypocrite. everybody knew msueeuw used but he was still treated as a hero. someone liek dave bruylandts who was caught at leats 4 times!! would get only 1 year bann from belgian authorities, same with keisse, leukemans etc. pathetic country in every way.

also why are you bringing boogerd up? do you think that hurts me because he's dutch like me? I'm not a narrowminded nationalist as you pisti

 

[El Pistolero]

that's what makes the belgians so hypocrite. everybody knew msueeuw used but he was still treated as a hero. someone liek dave bruylandts who was caught at leats 4 times!! would get only 1 year bann from belgian authorities, same with keisse, leukemans etc. pathetic country in every way.

also why are you bringing boogerd up? do you think that hurts me because he's dutch like me? I'm not a narrowminded nationalist as you pisti

Yes you are, you just replace Dutch with Colombians. You're probably the biggest nationalist on this forum. I bring up Boogerd to show you it's not just Belgians that threat cyclists as hero's even though they're not.

Really now Iljo Keisse? I doubt you know one thing about his case lol. Don't even bother. Can't compare that case to Vino at all.

Ps: the crowd booing Vino were mostly Walloons. Museeuw isn't a hero in the French speaking part of Belgium. Not that I expect you to know anything about Belgium.

What national TV are you talking about? Tell me one Belgian TV channel that's aimed at all of Belgium?

 

[jens_attacks]

c'mon pistolero be a man and admit it. you managed to mention phil, merckx and god vdb in all the posts. the next one i was expecting was fries and mayonaise.