Evans whinning

Richard_The_Cerveloman · July 2007

Ok, lets get out our tissues and hankies. Evans' is just making exsuses for his lack of abilty to attack the stongest riders in the tour. Enough already! You got second just try harder next year. No Free Gifts!!! If you want it that badly you have to fight for it, don't you think.

squired · July 2007

From what I've heard, he was moaning about a stage where it was apparently the responsibility of other teams to chase, and as a result he lost almost a minute to Contador. All this talk about responsibility is rubbish as far as I'm concerned. If you want to win then it is your responsibility.

Look at Rasmussen. He went away on the early mountain stage and got a bundle of time. He didn't attack and drop everyone - they essentially let him go because they thought he was just doing his usual stage win thing. The time he gained on that stage could have been what won him the race in the end. You'd think they would have learnt after last year with Pereiro. In the case of Rasmussen they presumably thought he was no threat, or decided to let everyone else chase him down. Whichever it was, it was poor judgement from people supposedly wanting to win.

calvjones · July 2007

I would guess his 'whining' is a not-very-coded message to Perdictor to sign some serious mountain domestiques for him next year, or he'll be signing to someone else.

I wouldn't actually rule out hin going back to T-Mobile.

flattythehurdler · July 2007

If there is a tmobile to go back to. He was beaten by a cheat. Why shouldn't he complain?
This tour just goes to show, you can't win it clean.

SteveR_100Milers · July 2007

flattythehurdler wrote:

If there is a tmobile to go back to. He was beaten by a cheat. Why shouldn't he complain?
This tour just goes to show, you can't win it clean.

Well said. Makes you wonder how many people think that Millar is just another "talentless whiner".

iainf72 · July 2007

flattythehurdler wrote:

If there is a tmobile to go back to. He was beaten by a cheat. Why shouldn't he complain?
This tour just goes to show, you can't win it clean.

So, if the people around him are dodgy, Cadel is talented enough to beat the guy in 4'th by 7 minutes?

You believe he's clean, but you have no evidence to support this. No one does.

babyjebus · July 2007

'whinning' is the perfect word to describe the Aussie attitude to sports, successful yet joyless. I'll be using that spelling mistake again in the future.

SteveR_100Milers · July 2007

iainf72 wrote:

flattythehurdler wrote:

If there is a tmobile to go back to. He was beaten by a cheat. Why shouldn't he complain?
This tour just goes to show, you can't win it clean.

So, if the people around him are dodgy, Cadel is talented enough to beat the guy in 4'th by 7 minutes?

You believe he's clean, but you have no evidence to support this. No one does.

But surely in principle, that each time a rider is tested, and passes, there is your evidence. The issue is the timing of the test (to detect banned substances whilst they are still present) and the validity of the test itself. An interesting thought though: if Ras can be ejected through suspicion of guilt, should a rider be included based upon suspicion (only) of being clean?

andyp · July 2007

iainf72 wrote:

So, if the people around him are dodgy, Cadel is talented enough to beat the guy in 4'th by 7 minutes?

You believe he's clean, but you have no evidence to support this. No one does.

Indeed. The basis of his cleanliness appears to be due to the fact that he speaks English or something.

Given that it's highly likely that Sastre was clean at this year's Tour (and I'm sure it'll come to light if he wasn't) do you not think he might be the best benchmark?

SteveR_100Milers · July 2007

andyp wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

So, if the people around him are dodgy, Cadel is talented enough to beat the guy in 4'th by 7 minutes?

You believe he's clean, but you have no evidence to support this. No one does.

Indeed. The basis of his cleanliness appears to be due to the fact that he speaks English or something.

Given that it's highly likely that Sastre was clean at this year's Tour (and I'm sure it'll come to light if he wasn't) do you not think he might be the best benchmark?

Why do you say that? (not challenging it, just want to understand the reasons)

timoid. · July 2007

I'd whine my ass off if some monobrow midget junkie beat me to the highest honour in my chosen career too.

IF I was clean

iainf72 · July 2007

"SteveR_100Milers wrote:

But surely in principle, that each time a rider is tested, and passes, there is your evidence. The issue is the timing of the test (to detect banned substances whilst they are still present) and the validity of the test itself. An interesting thought though: if Ras can be ejected through suspicion of guilt, should a rider be included based upon suspicion (only) of being clean?

It's one of those situations where you just don't know. Basso's test results were held up by the UCI at the beginning of 06 as an example of consistant "good" results. And we all know what happened there.

iainf72 · July 2007

Timoid. wrote:

I'd whine my ass off if some monobrow midget junkie beat me to the highest honour in my chosen career too.

IF I was clean

I'd do it if I was junked up to the gills or clean. Because I hate losing and I'm that kind of guy. :P

andyp · July 2007

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Why do you say that? (not challenging it, just want to understand the reasons)

I say it because he's been under supervision since the beginning of the year via CSC's anti-doping regime. It's administered by the leading Danish anti-doping expert, Rasmus Damsgaard, and is run independently of the team. The sponsor insisted it was put in place last year after Basso was excluded from the Tour.

skut · July 2007

andyp wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Why do you say that? (not challenging it, just want to understand the reasons)

I say it because he's been under supervision since the beginning of the year via CSC's anti-doping regime. It's administered by the leading Danish anti-doping expert, Rasmus Damsgaard, and is run independently of the team. The sponsor insisted it was put in place last year after Basso was excluded from the Tour.

Or is it just that you're bitter cos you picked Sastre for PTP and he only managed 4th again despite half the competition being kicked out

andyp · July 2007

skut wrote:

Or is it just that you're bitter cos you picked Sastre for PTP and he only managed 4th again despite half the competition being kicked out

Smirk. I actually picked him because a) I thought he was clean and b) I thought the route, especially the last week, suited him.

Did anyone pick either Rasmussen or Contador for the overall?

peejay78 · July 2007

cheeky.

i think the main issue is that cadel evans may be a bit of a limpet, but he lacks the super domestiques to help through the mountains, no leipheimer - who may have been GC contender but ended up in a wierd role, no big hitters at all. no constant attacks by other riders to draw things out.

which makes his success all the more impressive.

slightly OT - rode down to brighton from bow this morning and was pleased to see pantani's name still visible on the road up ditchling.

nick hanson · July 2007

I think Evans rode a superb tour,to the max of his abilities/lack of domestiques.Had the riders done an out & back TT on the sat,or had a crosswind,rather than a storming tailwind that blew the midgets along,then i feel we might well have had a different winner of this years tour.
Think about it,the climbers had it all their own way in this years TDF.Plenty of climbs,the first TT was a hilly one,which Ras said would suit him,even before he rode it.Get to the last TT & you get a strong tailwind,which negates any advantage the strong rouler might get.No wonder Evans is a bit pi**ed!

Captain Fagor · July 2007

I'm not a fan of Contador, but I'm glad Evans didn't win it. After all, he didn't put a wheel at the front the entire race! And whenever he got dropped on the mountains, someone behind would find a second wind and Evans would latch onto their wheels they passed.

iainf72 · July 2007

Captain Fagor wrote:

I'm not a fan of Contador, but I'm glad Evans didn't win it. After all, he didn't put a wheel at the front the entire race! And whenever he got dropped on the mountains, someone behind would find a second wind and Evans would latch onto their wheels they passed.

Not to be pedantic, but he did.

In the Alps - The stage Soler won.

nick hanson · July 2007

iainf72 wrote:

Captain Fagor wrote:

I'm not a fan of Contador, but I'm glad Evans didn't win it. After all, he didn't put a wheel at the front the entire race! And whenever he got dropped on the mountains, someone behind would find a second wind and Evans would latch onto their wheels they passed.

Not to be pedantic, but he did.

In the Alps - The stage Soler won.

Also he won the first TT after they kicked out the drug addled Vino,so he must have had his wheel in front on that stage

People have won the TDF without a stage win before now.
Probably hard trying to get your wheel in front of people when they are putting out power above what seems natural,don't you think?.
Suppose we are back to the problem of people wanting to see a dramatic spectacle of permanant attacking,which,i'm sorry,ain't naturally possible

SteveR_100Milers · July 2007

I'm amazed how many cyclists on a cycling forum seem to enjoy the sight of drug addled riders making for "exciting and attacking" riding.

Captain Fagor · July 2007

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I'm amazed how many cyclists on a cycling forum seem to enjoy the sight of drug addled riders making for "exciting and attacking" riding.

Are you making a concerted effort to be patronising, or does it come naturally?

SteveR_100Milers · July 2007

Captain Fagor wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I'm amazed how many cyclists on a cycling forum seem to enjoy the sight of drug addled riders making for "exciting and attacking" riding.

Are you making a concerted effort to be patronising, or does it come naturally?

Sorry if you don't like the tone, but whats the point of cyclist sorting out doping when some of the spectators seem to prefer the doped up version of the race?? It wasn't a criticism of your post, there are plenty of other posts that make that point much more obviously; so am not sure why you responded this way - unless of course you do actually believe that doped racing is better to watch??
As it happens, I'm no personal fan of Evans either, but if the guy is clean (and he rides like he is) then I have evey sympathy fro him trying to use every single opportunity to level the playing field with those that have cheated. IIRC drafting is not illegal on a RR road stage.

afx237vi · July 2007

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I'm amazed how many cyclists on a cycling forum seem to enjoy the sight of drug addled riders making for "exciting and attacking" riding.

Er, because sport is supposed to be entertaining? Whether they are dopers or not, the sight of Rasmussen and Contador going at it hammer and tongs up the Plateau-de-Beille was damn exciting.

Far more entertaining than Cadel Evans gurning his way up and then moaning at the top about how no-one else was helping him.

I watch sport to be entertained, not to feel morally superior.

shannyla · July 2007

afx237vi wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I'm amazed how many cyclists on a cycling forum seem to enjoy the sight of drug addled riders making for "exciting and attacking" riding.

Er, because sport is supposed to be entertaining? Whether they are dopers or not, the sight of Rasmussen and Contador going at it hammer and tongs up the Plateau-de-Beille was damn exciting.

Far more entertaining than Cadel Evans gurning his way up and then moaning at the top about how no-one else was helping him.

I watch sport to be entertained, not to feel morally superior.

Chapeaux! Most exciting stage for years, and I have to say, they both looked fucked at the top. I did not consider Rasmussen to be flying, merely fighting hard and he's kind of proved that he can kick on the climbs. And been caught doping precisely as many times as the "clean" Evans, which is never.

SteveR_100Milers · July 2007

afx237vi wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I'm amazed how many cyclists on a cycling forum seem to enjoy the sight of drug addled riders making for "exciting and attacking" riding.

Er, because sport is supposed to be entertaining? Whether they are dopers or not, the sight of Rasmussen and Contador going at it hammer and tongs up the Plateau-de-Beille was damn exciting.

Far more entertaining than Cadel Evans gurning his way up and then moaning at the top about how no-one else was helping him.

I watch sport to be entertained, not to feel morally superior.

Hang on its got nothing to with moral superiority. Its got everything to do with cheating or not, and simply do you endorse it or not? If not then how can it be considered exciting? It's false, and therefore surely what is the point as a spectacle? Or should we accept doping, and in fact encourage it because it makes riders do "exciting" things that normal people can't?? . I can assure you I dont feel the slightest bit smug about it, just p*ssed off that the sport I enjoy both watching and taking part in is rubbished by the media which has an inevitable influence on the amount of room mr white van driver gives me next time Im labouring along a dual carriageway on a sunday morning.

afx237vi · July 2007

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Hang on its got nothing to with moral superiority. Its got everything to do with cheating or not, and simply do you endorse it or not? If not then how can it be considered exciting? It's false, and therefore surely what is the point as a spectacle? Or should we accept doping, and in fact encourage it because it makes riders do "exciting" things that normal people can't?? . I can assure you I dont feel the slightest bit smug about it, just p*ssed off that the sport I enjoy both watching and taking part in is rubbished by the media which has an inevitable influence on the amount of room mr white van driver gives me next time Im labouring along a dual carriageway on a sunday morning.

I simply don't get that emotionally involved. I don't condone cheating, but nor do I view every cyclist that wins a race as a potential cheat. I watch cycling because I enjoy it. If Vino fails a dope test, it doesn't really affect my life does it? It's not my problem, and I'll still tune in the next day.

I don't really spend my evenings worrying about whether the winner of [whatever race] is a cheat or not.

top_bhoy · July 2007

shannyla wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I'm amazed how many cyclists on a cycling forum seem to enjoy the sight of drug addled riders making for "exciting and attacking" riding.

Er, because sport is supposed to be entertaining? Whether they are dopers or not, the sight of Rasmussen and Contador going at it hammer and tongs up the Plateau-de-Beille was damn exciting.

Far more entertaining than Cadel Evans gurning his way up and then moaning at the top about how no-one else was helping him.

I watch sport to be entertained, not to feel morally superior.

Chapeaux! Most exciting stage for years, and I have to say, they both looked farked at the top. I did not consider Rasmussen to be flying, merely fighting hard and he's kind of proved that he can kick on the climbs. And been caught doping precisely as many times as the "clean" Evans, which is never.

The most exciting and the biggest sham in years also. I've never been so dissappointed by cycling when after the Contador/Ras one-on-one duel in which Ras came out on top, I went to bed (1.30am in Oz) only to find that a few hours later when driving to work, Ras had been kicked out - you have to wonder if its worth the effort sometimes!!!

The excitement of the stage was overshadowed by the anti-climax of the hours which followed.

SteveR_100Milers · July 2007

afx237vi wrote:

I simply don't get that emotionally involved. I don't condone cheating, but nor do I view every cyclist that wins a race as a potential cheat. I watch cycling because I enjoy it. If Vino fails a dope test, it doesn't really affect my life does it? It's not my problem, and I'll still tune in the next day.

I don't really spend my evenings worrying about whether the winner of [whatever race] is a cheat or not.

Nor do I, but sometimes there are events that do not fit with the performance of "normal" humans within the context of the rest of the peleton. Ultimately I also don't give a damn what other cyclist shove down their throats, more the effects that their actions have upon what treatment and (lack of) respect I get on the road, as I prefer to ride/race myself than watch someone else do it. Having some tit in a van yelling druggie w*nker at you as he passes 5 microns from your right elbow isnt funny. Now that does keep me awake at night.

RichN95. · July 2007

afx237vi wrote:

Er, because sport is supposed to be entertaining? Whether they are dopers or not, the sight of Rasmussen and Contador going at it hammer and tongs up the Plateau-de-Beille was damn exciting.

Far more entertaining than Cadel Evans gurning his way up and then moaning at the top about how no-one else was helping him.

I watch sport to be entertained, not to feel morally superior.

But if everyone was playing by the rules you'd still have the battles - it would just be, for example, Evans and Sastre rather than Rasmussen and Contador. Maybe there'd be more people involved.
There probably wouldn't be more or less the same finishing order on each mountain stage either.
The best period I've seen for Tour excitement and entertainment was 86-89, the pre-EPO years

Evans whinning

Comments

Categories