What about Oscar Pereiro?

[Maxiton]

And then you have this great big anomaly in the middle.

1st 2006 tour de france.

Even though you know he won the tour, when you see the 1st, considering the rest of his palmares, you half expect it to say - 2006 tour of lankawi. But no, there it is, clear as day, the grandady of them all. The tour de france, oscar pereiro 2006 champion. Wow.

Yeah, but that's exactly what Pereiro himself said in a recent interview. He was asked why he was retiring now, and in answering he said that for awhile after being declared winner by default he thought of himself as the winner, and put a lot of pressure on himself to get similar results in other races. Finally, though, he had to face the fact that he's never been more than a top-end pack rider (or something to that effect). And now that he's faced it, he said, he is much happier and has nothing left to prove.

As to whether he doped - well, he's in the Euro peloton, isn't he?

I went out train'n with em. All we took was oranges, water and sports drink.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5HjL7yMc_U

This is awesome. Subscribed.

 

[The Hitch]

A mistake people seem to be making .

It was the idiocy of the rival teams and their director's to give away so much time to Pereiro in his breakaway. Although not one of the favourites to win the race he was still a top 10 or top 20 rider. It happened before in the Tour, in about 1960 I think. Pereiro was a good climber, a great descender and a decent time trialist. A similar thing almost happened this year in the Giro with David Arroyo although the circumstances were completely different. So much for race radios making races too predictable.

ridiculous thread, totally missing the point. Pereiro's result in that race was purely down to luck and tactics.
his results are exactly in line with my expectations, as a guy who usually hangs on to the front group, but wasn't initially going for the GC win.
you don't get top 10s in the tour without being a very solid climber.

none of this sheds any light on whether he doped or not.

So many seem to think Pereiro won because of the breakaway.

His breakaway made him even. He did not have a half an hour lead. His lead was 1 minute 30.

Arroyo at the giro had a 10 minute gc lead and slowly bled time over the next 8 or so stages.

Pereiro had a 1 minute 30 lead and held this. He stayed with the heads of state on some stage and beat them on others. Tactics may have got him a 1 minute 30 lead. But his performance in the alps, - tactics got nothing to do with it.

 

[hrotha]

And the mistake you're making is not acknowledging that Pereiro had proved to be at that level before. Also, you fail to realize that, without all the people busted for Puerto, Pereiro would have been 6th in 2005, and that despite the fact that he spent the mountain stages in breakaways that usually failed. That's the thing: the top cyclists after Puerto aren't the same as the top cyclists before Puerto. That's how riders like Evans became top contenders, but you extrapolate from their later results even though, in 2005 and 2006, there was no reason to assume any of those riders was so superior to Pereiro.

He had two minutes and a half on Klöden after the breakaway, but more importantly, he was in a position to ride for the podium. Of course he was going to do better than expected. Take a look at Hesjedal. If he hadn't found himself up in the GC, he'd have taken it easier and finished 20th or thereabouts.

Most likely, he doped, but his performance was still consistent with his whole career.

 

[kurtinsc]

And the mistake you're making is not acknowledging that Pereiro had proved to be at that level before. Also, you fail to realize that, without all the people busted for Puerto, Pereiro would have been 6th in 2005, and that despite the fact that he spent the mountain stages in breakaways that usually failed. That's the thing: the top cyclists after Puerto aren't the same as the top cyclists before Puerto. That's how riders like Evans became top contenders, but you extrapolate from their later results even though, in 2005 and 2006, there was no reason to assume any of those riders was so superior to Pereiro.

He had two minutes and a half on Klöden after the breakaway, but more importantly, he was in a position to ride for the podium. Of course he was going to do better than expected. Take a look at Hesjedal. If he hadn't found himself up in the GC, he'd have taken it easier and finished 20th or thereabouts.

Most likely, he doped, but his performance was still consistent with his whole career.

Periero was able to hold on to a 2:30-3 minute lead through the mountains.

If he truly had been at that level before, he wouldn't be finishing 16 minutes back like in 2005 (having gained time in breaks on 2 stage). He would have been around the Leipheimer's and Rasmussens who were 5 minutes ahead. He wouldn't have been 22 minutes back in 2004... he would have been with Mancebo and Totsching... 5 minutes ahead. He wouldn't have been 14 minutes back in 2007... he would have been with Zubeldia or Sastre 6-7 minutes ahead.

He was not a rider who could climb with the heads of state (even the non Armstrong/Ulrich/Basso heads of state) prior to or after that year. But once he got that lead... that year... he could.

I can't remember any results on climbs prior to or after 2006 that suggested that he'd be able to hold off Menchov at 2:30, Evans at 2:45, Sastre at 3:20 and Kloden at 4:00.

He lost 3:30 to Kloden, a minute to Sastre, gained 1:15 on Evans and gained 3:40 on Menchov through the rest of the mountains that year. Can you find ANY examples of that level of climbing without going on breaks from Periero in a race before or after? I mean I never saw evidence of him being able to climb with someone like Zubeldia or Rogers at that point... let alone Sastre, Evans or Menchov. Perhaps it's there and I just don't know about it... I'd be happy to let you show me.

 

[The Hitch]

And the mistake you're making is not acknowledging that Pereiro had proved to be at that level before.

That is a matter of opinion

I respect your opinion, I have nothing against Pereiro, but for me he hadnt proved himself at that level before hand. 10th was the highest gc placing he ever had.

Compare his palmares to all other gc guys. Even that tour. Ignore Sastre or Menchov coming 87th as neopros, and look at all the podiums, top 10s they have. All the other gc contenders in past tdfs have gone into the tour with a better palmares than pereiro did then. Even contador coming into the tour 07 had a paris nice. Pereiro had 3 top 10s in gc and 3 stage wins over his whole career. Sometimes you get a wiggins - 4th, van den brock -5th, but they merely hang on for the higher placings. They arent challenging for the gc. They arent being attacked for the yellow jersey day in day out in the alps by proven gc contenders. And they still both lost more time in their days of glory than the 2 minutes pereiro did in 06.

My point is, look at how Andy Schleck and Contador broke away from the Tourmalet and the Madeline at will. As soon as they wanted to they left everyone for dead. in 2006 all the top contedners tried to do this to Pereiro and he held with them. There is 1 thing to go from 10th to perhaps 4th or even 3rd. It is another to do that. To dance with the best.

 

[The Hitch]

Periero was able to hold on to a 2:30-3 minute lead through the mountains.

If he truly had been at that level before, he wouldn't be finishing 16 minutes back like in 2005 (having gained time in breaks on 2 stage). He would have been around the Leipheimer's and Rasmussens who were 5 minutes ahead. He wouldn't have been 22 minutes back in 2004... he would have been with Mancebo and Totsching... 5 minutes ahead. He wouldn't have been 14 minutes back in 2007... he would have been with Zubeldia or Sastre 6-7 minutes ahead.

He was not a rider who could climb with the heads of state (even the non Armstrong/Ulrich/Basso heads of state) prior to or after that year. But once he got that lead... that year... he could.

I can't remember any results on climbs prior to or after 2006 that suggested that he'd be able to hold off Menchov at 2:30, Evans at 2:45, Sastre at 3:20 and Kloden at 4:00.

He lost 3:30 to Kloden, a minute to Sastre, gained 1:15 on Evans and gained 3:40 on Menchov through the rest of the mountains that year. Can you find ANY examples of that level of climbing without going on breaks from Periero in a race before or after? I mean I never saw evidence of him being able to climb with someone like Zubeldia or Rogers at that point... let alone Sastre, Evans or Menchov. Perhaps it's there and I just don't know about it... I'd be happy to let you show me.

exactly.

 

[hrotha]

I can't remember any results on climbs prior to or after 2006 that suggested that he'd be able to hold off Menchov at 2:30, Evans at 2:45, Sastre at 3:20 and Kloden at 4:00.

He lost 3:30 to Kloden, a minute to Sastre, gained 1:15 on Evans and gained 3:40 on Menchov through the rest of the mountains that year. Can you find ANY examples of that level of climbing without going on breaks from Periero in a race before or after? I mean I never saw evidence of him being able to climb with someone like Zubeldia or Rogers at that point... let alone Sastre, Evans or Menchov. Perhaps it's there and I just don't know about it... I'd be happy to let you show me.

There's no possible comparison because before 2006 Pereiro had always ridden as a stage hunter, getting into breakaways in the mountain stages. Anyway, I'm more than willing to concede that he did better than usual, but that's what happens when you suddenly find yourself involved in the top places of the GC.

Compare his palmares to all other gc guys. Even that tour. Ignore Sastre or Menchov coming 87th as neopros, and look at all the podiums, top 10s they have. All the other gc contenders in past tdfs have gone into the tour with a better palmares than pereiro did then. Even contador coming into the tour 07 had a paris nice. Pereiro had 3 top 10s in gc and 3 stage wins over his whole career. Sometimes you get a wiggins - 4th, van den brock -5th, but they merely hang on for the higher placings. They arent challenging for the gc. They arent being attacked for the yellow jersey day in day out in the alps by proven gc contenders. And they still both lost more time in their days of glory than the 2 minutes pereiro did in 06.

My point is, look at how Andy Schleck and Contador broke away from the Tourmalet and the Madeline at will. As soon as they wanted to they left everyone for dead. in 2006 all the top contedners tried to do this to Pereiro and he held with them. There is 1 thing to go from 10th to perhaps 4th or even 3rd. It is another to do that. To dance with the best.

Again, my point is that what made the 2006 TdF special was that there were NO proven contenders. The closest thing was Klöden. Sastre, Menchov and Evans only came to be considered true TdF contenders after the 2006 TdF. There was no one even remotely comparable to 2010 Contador or Andy for Pereiro to stay with in the mountains. I wasn't posting the results of those guys as neo-pros, I was posting their most recent results up to that point. Big difference.

 

[Nick C.]

in 04 when he rode w/o breakaways he was as follows-forgive any spelling errors:

La Mongie: LA/Basso; Klodi 0:20 , Mancebo 0:24, Sastre 0:33, Pereiro 0:50, Menchov 0:59

Plateau de Baille: LA/Basso, Totschnig 1:05, Klodi&Mancebo 1:27, Der Kaiser 2:42, Azevedo 2:50, Moreau&Cauchiolli 2:51, Simoni 3:43, Pereiro & Goubert 4:29

Villard de Lans: LA/Basso, Der Kaiser 0:03, Klodi 0:06, Levi (1st appearance) 0:13, Virenqu 0:48 & Rasmussen 0:49 (day long break that got caught), Azevedo 0:53, Voigt 1:04, Sastre 1:24, Brochard 1:58, Sabuliaskas 2:02, Pereiro 2:10, Moreau 2:11 Simoni, Totschnig, Mancebo +2 2:13

Alpe de Huez TT 14th @ 3:05

Le Grand Bornard

LA, Klodi, Basso, der Kaiser, Floyd then Axel and Levi @ 1:01, Sastre, Azevedo, Totshnig and Rasmussen 1:02, Karpets 2:00 Pereiro leads in a group of 5 including Mancebo and Virenque

interpret that any way you like, for me he was pretty consistently in the next group every stage so I wasn't surprised he could hang on in '06. Others may see things differently.

 

[The Hitch]

Again, my point is that what made the 2006 TdF special was that there were NO proven contenders. The closest thing was Klöden. Sastre, Menchov and Evans only came to be considered true TdF contenders after the 2006 TdF. There was no one even remotely comparable to 2010 Contador or Andy for Pereiro to stay with in the mountains. I wasn't posting the results of those guys as neo-pros, I was posting their most recent results up to that point. Big difference.

Ok i can concede that. There was no contador schleck type at the 2006 tour.

What about all the other points. The fact that his palmares was nothing compared to Sastre, Menchov Kloeden, Evans.

What about the fact that he was losing minutes to these guys in previous tours. Like kurtinic showed, breakaway or no breakaway, he was a decent climber at best. Did he ever show anything near the sort of form he showed in the 06 tour. All other riders do. But pereiro, not once did he step up and show this.

Far better climbers and all rounders have missed out on podium placings in the tour, and he won it. If you look at kurtinic post, Pereiro wasnt underpeforming when he came 10th. That was a reflection of his abilities.


Perhaps you are underestimating the step from 10th to 1st.

The step from 10th to 5th is huge.
The step from 5th to podium is even bigger.
The step from podium to contending for the gc - not just hanging on but marking attacks, having opponents try to shake you off, working together against you , surviving all that is very big and few can make that leap.
The next step - onto the top step of the podium, is the biggest, and only a few select cyclists have ever made that step.


Did Oscar Pereiro- a few top 10s and a stage win, ever show anything to suggest that last step, let alone the previous 2, was within his reach, and all in one go no less. For me the answer is no, though it is a matter of opinion.




PS. My point was that when you write that menchov or sastre got 87th in the 2003 tour, it makes their palmares look worse. People will then overlook the top 10 placing they got the next year. Thats why usually, even if a rider is proud of their low placing or their lantern rouge, a palmares only shows podiums, top 5ths or sometimes top 10s.

 

[woodburn]

Those 2004 records are probably the most accurate and show Pereiro riding for GC every day. Too much is made of those riders not fighting for GC and finishing 10-15 minutes off the lead. The assumption is each rider is at his maximum each day which isn't the case many times. Remember Andy Schleck at the Tour of California this year.

Pereiro might have been fresher in the Alps because he was taking it easy earlier in the Tour. So when he caught lightning in a bottle and had the lead, he was in position to take advantage. It also points to the lack of weakness of the other contenders.

 

[kurtinsc]

Again, my point is that what made the 2006 TdF special was that there were NO proven contenders. The closest thing was Klöden. Sastre, Menchov and Evans only came to be considered true TdF contenders after the 2006 TdF. There was no one even remotely comparable to 2010 Contador or Andy for Pereiro to stay with in the mountains. I wasn't posting the results of those guys as neo-pros, I was posting their most recent results up to that point. Big difference.

Prior to the 2006 Tour, Evans had won the Tour of Normandy.
He'd also ridden much closer to the lead groups in the 2005 tour then Pereiro. Carlos Sastre finished SECOND in the Vuelta in 2005. Menchov WON the Vuelta in 2005, and won a stage on Mount Ventoux in 2006 in the Dauphine Libere. (3+ minutes ahead of Pereiro).

In 2005 and 2006, we had already started seeing Evans, Menchov and Sastre in the elite groups when the mountains went up. They would be there with 10-12 guys left when the climbing started. This wasn't something that started after the 2006 Tour.

You also had riders like Cunego (who finished 4th in the Giro that year and 11th in the Tour), Leipheimer (win the 2006 Dauphine Libere) and Rasmussen (7th in 2005 Tour, KOM winner). All of these guys were more recognizable in terms of being at the front of races in the mountains then Pereiro.


Pereiro had NEVER shown that ability before. Evans, Leipheimer, Kloden, Sastre, Menchov, Rasmussen... even Cunego... they all had.

 

[LastDamnation]

In his ABC interview, Landis was asked if LA was a fraud

OT: When he does these TV interviews, how do they introduce Landis? Is he still regarded as the "winner" in 06 in america?

 

[Nick C.]

Prior to the 2006 Tour, Evans had won the Tour of Normandy.
He'd also ridden much closer to the lead groups in the 2005 tour then Pereiro. Carlos Sastre finished SECOND in the Vuelta in 2005. Menchov WON the Vuelta in 2005, and won a stage on Mount Ventoux in 2006 in the Dauphine Libere. (3+ minutes ahead of Pereiro).

In 2005 and 2006, we had already started seeing Evans, Menchov and Sastre in the elite groups when the mountains went up. They would be there with 10-12 guys left when the climbing started. This wasn't something that started after the 2006 Tour.

You also had riders like Cunego (who finished 4th in the Giro that year and 11th in the Tour), Leipheimer (win the 2006 Dauphine Libere) and Rasmussen (7th in 2005 Tour, KOM winner). All of these guys were more recognizable in terms of being at the front of races in the mountains then Pereiro.


Pereiro had NEVER shown that ability before. Evans, Leipheimer, Kloden, Sastre, Menchov, Rasmussen... even Cunego... they all had.

Dude how do explain the '04 results when he was in the top 6-15 EVERY mountain satge and never from a break and other than Klodi and a stage or two from Levi or sastre (evans did not ride) they never finidshed ahead of him. Those pesky little facts. I'm not trying to make him into some podium threat but you make him sound like he was the equivalent of Wiggo or rogers in this tour always the first guy dropped.

 

[The Hitch]

OT: When he does these TV interviews, how do they introduce Landis? Is he still regarded as the "winner" in 06 in america?

im not american but i saw a clip of the interview and the introduction. Landis is usaly called the disgraced winner, or in that case i think it was the man who topped the podium only to have it taken away.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Pereiro was in the first-group-back for most of 2004, and then was a co-leader at best in 2005 to Landis, and of course got most of his work from breakaways. And look at the strength he showed in the stage where Hincapie won.

In 2006, Pereiro came to the Tour as the second-in-command at Caisse. Not much pressure on him. Even less pressure when Valverde crashed out, of course. He dropped 26 minutes in one mountain stage, preserving a huge amount of energy. Phonak were not a particularly strong team at the '06 Tour, which is why they wanted rid of the maillot jaune in the first place. Lots of other teams had been gutted by injuries and Puerto, and a lot of the riders who were contenders - who have later proven to be genuine contenders, such as Menchov, Sastre and Evans - were not the experienced team leaders that they now are; as a result, they perhaps were not able to take advantage of Pereiro's perceived weakness as much as they would with more GC riding experience behind them. Yes, I know Menchov was already a GT winner at that point, but that was in extenuating circumstances similar to Óscar's.

And hey, hasn't "a change of scenery" been accepted as a nice and happy and totally acceptable reason for a rider to suddenly ride at a higher level with Cadel Evans just this year? Why could it not be that the change of scenery from Phonak to Caisse d'Epargne meant Pereiro was able to ride with a more positive mindset and get more from himself?

Mind you, the simple fact that the team leader prior to 2006 was Paco Mancebo, and that the team leader at that Tour was Alejandro Valverde, will always lead one down a particular line of thought.

 

[Teddy Boom]

in 04 when he rode w/o breakaways he was as follows-forgive any spelling errors:

La Mongie: LA/Basso; Klodi 0:20 , Mancebo 0:24, Sastre 0:33, Pereiro 0:50, Menchov 0:59

Plateau de Baille: LA/Basso, Totschnig 1:05, Klodi&Mancebo 1:27, Der Kaiser 2:42, Azevedo 2:50, Moreau&Cauchiolli 2:51, Simoni 3:43, Pereiro & Goubert 4:29

Villard de Lans: LA/Basso, Der Kaiser 0:03, Klodi 0:06, Levi (1st appearance) 0:13, Virenqu 0:48 & Rasmussen 0:49 (day long break that got caught), Azevedo 0:53, Voigt 1:04, Sastre 1:24, Brochard 1:58, Sabuliaskas 2:02, Pereiro 2:10, Moreau 2:11 Simoni, Totschnig, Mancebo +2 2:13

Alpe de Huez TT 14th @ 3:05

Le Grand Bornard

LA, Klodi, Basso, der Kaiser, Floyd then Axel and Levi @ 1:01, Sastre, Azevedo, Totshnig and Rasmussen 1:02, Karpets 2:00 Pereiro leads in a group of 5 including Mancebo and Virenque

interpret that any way you like, for me he was pretty consistently in the next group every stage so I wasn't surprised he could hang on in '06. Others may see things differently.

QED

(that's some kick *** research too!!)

 

[BikeCentric]

Pereiro had NEVER shown that ability before. Evans, Leipheimer, Kloden, Sastre, Menchov, Rasmussen... even Cunego... they all had.

Well actually Pereiro had show that ability before as he's always been a good climber. I think your real point is that you just weren't watching any cycling pre 2006 or weren't paying attention to what was happening.

But aside from that, what is the point you are trying to make? That Oscar had access to some kind of super-duper monster dope that no one else had and he only used it for that one Tour in '06 and that he only busted it out when it looked like he had a chance of winning?

As usual Kurt you seem to string a lot of words together without saying anything at all. Maybe you could work on your brevity. If not, no worries, that's what the ignore list is for.