talent
is what it takes to be a top professional cyclist....at least to sustain it long term through 3 -4 levels of progress. Down with your doping threads and stop smearing the sport with these awful doping threads that dominate the forum , esp the Armstrong ones......and look at it from another point of view...
0
Comments
-
Would be nice if results were based on talent, application and wits alone. Unfortunately we know that's not the case.
Still, this constant shoeing of Armstrong is wearisome. I hope he does ride the Giro where he will most likely be destroyed by Basso.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Timoid. wrote:Would be nice if results were based on talent, application and wits alone. Unfortunately we know that's not the case.
Still, this constant shoeing of Armstrong is wearisome. I hope he does ride the Giro where he will most likely be destroyed by Basso.
really? How many anti doping controls have been carried out this year and how many +s...none so far I think...why is this a doping forum when there's no +s so far? The constant digging through the bones of the past is all this race forum seems to be about just now...0 -
Of course it takes talent to turn pro. Did anyone suggest otherwise?
But many talented riders don't even get to sign a pro contract. You need a brain to win races as well as the right legs and lungs. Then, unless you are totally dominant in the U-23 races, you need to polish a CV and target it at the right people. You need to show the aptitude to progress, that you can prove that even becoming U-23 World Champion is just a stepping stone to more things. Then once you signed you need to get along well, show the right attitude. Along comes luck too, attack and get in a move with the right riders and you could get to the finish line and take your chance; a puncture at the wrong moment could spell disaster, an injury could see you unemployed.
It's hard enough just doing your job without having to worry about others who cheat, no?
But the problem is that an excellent rider with a lot of talent can mutate into a champion with doping, if they are willing to risk their health. A doped rider can leapfrog more talented riders.
Just ask someone like Sandy Casar, he's finished amongst the best in the Tour de France or Giro and on "bread and water", now that's talent. I wish riders like Casar could get the recognition they deserve but sadly he gets overshadowed by cheats, for example his sixth place in the Giro was distorted by Ivan Basso and others.
So I'll continue to point out hyprocrisy from some riders and to remind people that enormous question marks hang over many, many riders. Others can bury their head in the sand but what if we supported the little guy, the rider who has genuine talent but prefers to ride properly instead of cheat, the guy who is willing to condemn cheating rather than gloss over it.0 -
Good post Kleber,
But doesnt that mirror life? Not the drug taking but obviously excellent people missing promotions in favour of less talented people through circumstance, politics, crap management etc. Note that im not advocating drugtaking in sport because im not but if i were in the position of coming second or first and thats what was required I would do it providing the returns were sufficiently motivating. As a pro athlete I imagine there are many potentialy motivating things. People only ever rememberr the winners and winners have the wedge too.
Mark0 -
Kléber wrote:Of course it takes talent to turn pro. Did anyone suggest otherwise?
But many talented riders don't even get to sign a pro contract. You need a brain to win races as well as the right legs and lungs. Then, unless you are totally dominant in the U-23 races, you need to polish a CV and target it at the right people. You need to show the aptitude to progress, that you can prove that even becoming U-23 World Champion is just a stepping stone to more things. Then once you signed you need to get along well, show the right attitude. Along comes luck too, attack and get in a move with the right riders and you could get to the finish line and take your chance; a puncture at the wrong moment could spell disaster, an injury could see you unemployed.
It's hard enough just doing your job without having to worry about others who cheat, no?
But the problem is that an excellent rider with a lot of talent can mutate into a champion with doping, if they are willing to risk their health. A doped rider can leapfrog more talented riders.
Just ask someone like Sandy Casar, he's finished amongst the best in the Tour de France or Giro and on "bread and water", now that's talent. I wish riders like Casar could get the recognition they deserve but sadly he gets overshadowed by cheats, for example his sixth place in the Giro was distorted by Ivan Basso and others.
So I'll continue to point out hyprocrisy from some riders and to remind people that enormous question marks hang over many, many riders. Others can bury their head in the sand but what if we supported the little guy, the rider who has genuine talent but prefers to ride properly instead of cheat, the guy who is willing to condemn cheating rather than gloss over it.
Kleber,
how many + tests this year so far...we are still waiting and how many doping threads this year-hundreds, and also...raking through the bones of the past is what it mostly is on the doping forum (misnamed Pro Race) ...people who repeatedly come back to the doping issue use the "standing up for the clean rider who didn't win" banner as cover...they are infact envious they never had it themselves as cyclists...so lets rubbish a once 20 year old who could nearly win world cup classics at 20 , worlds at 21, put it all down to "better responder to doping" instead of respecting the talent...I am sick of you people who won't recongise the many talented athletes in the sport and dishonestly use the guise of defending the clean rider when its you that's miffed cause you wish you could have been there. Not aimed at you personally Kleber...just generally.0 -
But positive tests don't equate to doping, we've known that since the early 1990s when EPO use became rampant, there wasn't even a test for the hormone.
The sport has little credibility when key names are seemingly linked to Dr Fuentes through paperwork but claim to know nothing about it. On one sheet of paper you have the top two riders on the UCI Pro Tour rankings, plus the leading Grand Tour rider alone. Do we just say, "ok guys, you haven't tested positive so you don't need to answer questions"?
Do we pretend that Puerto didn't happen? Do we just assume that the winner of Paris-Nice has "moved on" or that Contador wasn't involved with Fuentes? If so, and we are to give them the benefit of the doubt, why won't they return the favour and talk about it openly, to condemn doping and to answer questions on the matter?
Or look at UCI, it announced in February that prosecutions under the Bio Passport scheme would be "days or weeks away" and a month on, there's nothing. This is like a Sword of Damocles hanging by a narrow thread above the sport, ready to kill off credibility, to bring bad headlines and to scare away potential sponsors.
Doping is surely the biggest issue facing pro cycling today? Not even the recession can impact TV audiences, sponsors or the number of races on the calendar by as much and the economy is (thankfully) beyond the control of the UCI and besides this forum isn't the place to discuss monetary policy.0 -
++1 Abso&%^£lutely !!Dave_1 wrote:is what it takes to be a top professional cyclist....at least to sustain it long term through 3 -4 levels of progress. Down with your doping threads and stop smearing the sport with these awful doping threads that dominate the forum , esp the Armstrong ones......and look at it from another point of view..... who said that, internet forum people ?0 -
Timoid. wrote:Would be nice if results were based on talent, application and wits alone. Unfortunately we know that's not the case.
I have asked this before but why not again? Who is this "WE" you're talking about?
Give me a number of these "WE" people that are all knowing. Couple hundred? Couple thousand? Millions? If you can try and word it a little better. "WE" is not the right way of putting it. Name names and put your "facts" in writing and then see what happens.
Or if you don't trust your "facts", well...............
Remember, you're the accuser and the burden of proof is on you. Put it in writing, show us what ya got.
Dennis Noward0 -
Kléber wrote:But positive tests don't equate to doping, we've known that since the early 1990s when EPO use became rampant, there wasn't even a test for the hormone.
The sport has little credibility when key names are seemingly linked to Dr Fuentes through paperwork but claim to know nothing about it. On one sheet of paper you have the top two riders on the UCI Pro Tour rankings, plus the leading Grand Tour rider alone. Do we just say, "ok guys, you haven't tested positive so you don't need to answer questions"?
Do we pretend that Puerto didn't happen? Do we just assume that the winner of Paris-Nice has "moved on" or that Contador wasn't involved with Fuentes? If so, and we are to give them the benefit of the doubt, why won't they return the favour and talk about it openly, to condemn doping and to answer questions on the matter?
Or look at UCI, it announced in February that prosecutions under the Bio Passport scheme would be "days or weeks away" and a month on, there's nothing. This is like a Sword of Damocles hanging by a narrow thread above the sport, ready to kill off credibility, to bring bad headlines and to scare away potential sponsors.
Doping is surely the biggest issue facing pro cycling today? Not even the recession can impact TV audiences, sponsors or the number of races on the calendar by as much and the economy is (thankfully) beyond the control of the UCI and besides this forum isn't the place to discuss monetary policy.
I really don't think Valverde will get to ASO races ...let's see how it plays out...Doping isn't the biggest issue , it's a minor issue as most people it seems are negative in testing and i have more confidence in the bio passport, tests for hgh and other substances than perhaps you, we're not in 1998 now...testing has got a lot better obviosuly and i also don't believe the better responder to doping wins...talent wins for the most part.0 -
Every single cycling fan and TV viewer who watched the Tour de France last summer, for starters. They saw the likes of Ricco dance uphill, Schumacher speed to TT wins or Kohl latch onto the wheels of GC contenders.dennisn wrote:
I have asked this before but why not again? Who is this "WE" you're talking about?Timoid. wrote:Would be nice if results were based on talent, application and wits alone. Unfortunately we know that's not the case.
So we're into tens of millions of people already, do I need to name them all?
0 -
Start a thread demanding not to discuss doping and you are bound to end up talking doping.
If positive tests equated to doped riders, we'd be really in the cack.
Think I might become an apologist, too, if that were the case.
Did CERA teach us nothing, last Tour?
I don't know if I'm allowed to used the collective "us", without prior permission from Dennis, but there you go.
BTW: I notice Oscar Sevilla managed a top 10 in the ITT, today.........."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Dave_1 just a question - is this a thread about all talented riders or about acknowledging that one particular rider is talented and his achoievements are not just due to (alleged) doping.
If it's about talented riders I'm up for that discussion - and am really looking forward to the coming seasons when the new guard really make their mark. But I don't see the point in starting a thread about acknowledging that riders who make it into the pro ranks are talented and then getting upset because it's not a string of responses saying 'yes, we admit, he really is talented it isn't just the (alleged) doping'.
When we lived in France we had a lad stay with us who was a stagiare with the local cycling team - he was pretty good and got picked up by a feeder team being coached by Luc Leblanc. He had ripped it up in local races but he just couldn't make the grade - there were never any questions that he ought to dope to do better, he just couldn't go up to the next level. He achieved as much as his talent would allow - or maybe he just didn't believe in his talent enough to think he could survive at the next level.
I agree with Mark - there can be many other factors why talented people don't achieve what their talent promises.0 -
Take's a talented mind to race well too! Look at the "ask a NOT SO stupid question" column in the new procycling issue (pg 28 .) with Dave Brailsford. He says something along the lines of:
Ben Switf wasn't measuring anything exciting on the SRM meters etc, but he knows how to ride a race very well, and has a good ability to suffer.
You can have the entire of Sainz's pharmacy at your disposal but if you don't know how to ride a race it's not much use!Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
micron wrote:Dave_1 just a question - is this a thread about all talented riders or about acknowledging that one particular rider is talented and his achoievements are not just due to (alleged) doping.
If it's about talented riders I'm up for that discussion - and am really looking forward to the coming seasons when the new guard really make their mark. But I don't see the point in starting a thread about acknowledging that riders who make it into the pro ranks are talented and then getting upset because it's not a string of responses saying 'yes, we admit, he really is talented it isn't just the (alleged) doping'.
When we lived in France we had a lad stay with us who was a stagiare with the local cycling team - he was pretty good and got picked up by a feeder team being coached by Luc Leblanc. He had ripped it up in local races but he just couldn't make the grade - there were never any questions that he ought to dope to do better, he just couldn't go up to the next level. He achieved as much as his talent would allow - or maybe he just didn't believe in his talent enough to think he could survive at the next level.
I agree with Mark - there can be many other factors why talented people don't achieve what their talent promises.
Have a look at the reaction to Contador...and the ancient history that is puerto...constant uneeded inappropriate ddebate about doping.
You almost only post about doping, strongly against Armstrong...so don't try and pretend you come to the subject neutrally, you hate what he achieved. Are you yet another hiding behind the "defend the clean runner up, the also ran" from the evil doper when infact it's you who didn't have it as a big rider? I have no idea who you are, only that you are very negative against people who wachieve a lot in the sport and many of us are sick of your likes twisting debate and making the sport look bad on this forum-a doping forum you've all succeeded in turning it into. Well done :roll:0 -
Two threads same point, why bother Dave. Clearly your feed up, fair enough but there entitled to there opinons as much as you are. If you dont like it well to bad lifes full of that.Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0
-
richard wants a baum wrote:Two threads same point, why bother Dave. Clearly your feed up, fair enough but there entitled to there opinons as much as you are. If you dont like it well to bad lifes full of that.
fair enough, so long as the overall impression of the sport is that it's a little more complicated than just sticking a syringe of EPO into your arm.....that's my problem with much of what's going on in the Race forum0 -
You really need to chill, Dave, you are coming across as being more and more angry all the time. Yes, talent and hard work are necessary to become successful, but no matter how much you try to ignore the fact modern doping methods can make HUGE differences to a rider's performance, and not all riders benefit to the same degree. A rider with a natural haemocrit level of 39% has much more to gain by boosting it to 50% than one whose natural level is already 49%. Are you really trying to ague that (50- 39) = (50-49)?Dave_1 wrote:people who repeatedly come back to the doping issue use the "standing up for the clean rider who didn't win" banner as cover...they are infact envious they never had it themselves as cyclists...so lets rubbish a once 20 year old who could nearly win world cup classics at 20 , worlds at 21, put it all down to "better responder to doping" instead of respecting the talent..
Also, as has been pointed out before, all drugs benefit different people to different degrees and affect them in different ways. Here is yet another illustration from this very site on Monday:
Testing the science of Viagra
A team of scientists from Stanford University and the Veteran Affairs department of the Palo Alto Health Care system carried out an experiment in which cyclists completed an identical time to exhaustion test at altitude with and without Viagra, or sildenafil as it’s known in scientific circles. On average, performance was improved when taking Viagra by a whopping 15 per cent. But the average result masked what was really going on.
Some responded to the Viagra in an incredibly positive way, recording a 39 per cent average improvement, while others found no improvement or even a slight decline in performance.
http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... t-up-203450 -
An apologist for the covering up of doping, it gets better all the time.
The interesting thing about the "few" who dope is that they tend to end up on the podium.
The jealously angle is gobsmackingly funny but "we" think you might be serious.0 -
Goodness me, Dennis. Have you formed an opinion of aurelio without having met him?Le Blaireau (1)0
-
DaveyL wrote:Goodness me, Dennis. Have you formed an opinion of aurelio without having met him?
Davey, do you think every critic on here, esp the Lance ones...or the ones who express outrage about doping are all genuine defenders of the "clean rider who's being cheated"...,resentful cause they only made it to premier calendar level, or a season in mainland Europe with a club team and then fired...back to 10 mile TTs and regional RRs? I don't believe everyone who posts against LA is genuine in their concern...more angry at their onw lack of talent IMO.0 -
I've got no idea about the motives of other people, Dave, and neither do you, with all due respect. You're just speculating.
Nonetheless, their motives are irrelevant - either they are right in what they say or they are wrong. So as you have no doubt been advised already, you ought to stick to playing the point, not the person.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I can't trust you, Dennis. I've never met you. Or have I?Le Blaireau (1)0
-
Dave_1 wrote:DaveyL wrote:Goodness me, Dennis. Have you formed an opinion of aurelio without having met him?
Davey, do you think every critic on here, esp the Lance ones...or the ones who express outrage about doping are all genuine defenders of the "clean rider who's being cheated"...,resentful cause they only made it to premier calendar level, or a season in mainland Europe with a club team and then fired...back to 10 mile TTs and regional RRs? I don't believe everyone who posts against LA is genuine in their concern...more angry at their onw lack of talent IMO.
Dave, what is with your obsession over forum members past cycling achievements? It's completely irrelevant to anything that is being discussed here. I've never ridden in a bike race in my life - I enjoy the sport purely from a spectator's POV. Does that my opinion any less valid, bearing in mind we are all talking about people we don't know, gleaned from facts we have read online or in magazines?0 -
DaveyL wrote:I've got no idea about the motives of other people Dave, and neither do you, with all due respect. You're just speculating.
Nonetheless, their motives are irrelevant - either they are right in what they say or they are wrong. So as you have no doubt been advised already, you ought to stick to playing the point, not the person.
but isn't it fair to ask someone to explain their background given their stance on a cyclist and doping allegations. How is that attacking the person? Has someone got an axe to grind is a fair question...can we not ask this?...Is this attacking a person?...I am forming a judgement based on what I've seen. You aren't ruling out the possibility someone has an axe to grind, but we may not bring that up? Seriously?0 -
afx237vi wrote:I've never ridden in a bike race in my life - I enjoy the sport purely from a spectator's POV. Does that my opinion any less valid, bearing in mind we are all talking about people we don't know, gleaned from facts we have read online or in magazines?
Excellent. Someone with less racing experience than me (I did a triathlon once).Twitter: @RichN950 -
Well Dave, I guess it's up to you to counter those facts, with your own ones.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
DaveyL wrote:Well Dave, I guess it's up to you to counter those facts, with your own ones.
fair comment..0 -
Sorry, I misunderstood, Dave_1 - I thought you'd initiated a thread about talent and I interpreted that to mean talking about riders with talent, hence my story about one young lad I knew personally. I'm also surprised to find that you think the subject of 'talent' can't be approached neutrally, leading me to suppose that you have a different agenda for posing the question.
I use my bike to go to the shops and down a country lane of a nice summer's day. I've never raced or ever wanted to - like afx, for me it's a pleasure, something I enjoy and entirely removed from the sport of professional cycling. And I love the sport of cycling, have done since I was a kid (I blame my grandad and great uncle who used to take me to see Tom Simpson when I was barely out of nappies) - that's where you and I and everyone on this forum share common ground, Dave_1, in our love of the sport.
I have a great deal of respect for the hard work that riders put in having witnessed it first hand. As with success in anything, you need a certain level of talent to succeed and then you need to work at it - and I don't doubt that Armstrong has those qualities. He wouldn't have got into the pro ranks without them - and without luck, schmoozing the right people, talking a good fight and all those other things that help to oil the wheels in any walk of life. Just like all of us.
And I can quite honestly say that, as a local government officer, with a fantastic kid, dog, nice house on the south coast, loving husband, hopes and aspirations and an all round suits me just fine life that I am not one wit jealous of Lance Armstrong - if anything I feel a bit sorry for the serial shagging and very public midlife crisis he seems to be acting out.
I love the sport but I hate the lack of credibility it enjoys because of the spectre of doping. I didlike the way that Armstrong conducts himself when the subject of doping arises. But what are we supposed to do? Sweep it under the carpet? What causes more damage to the sport? A group of fans debating information available in the public domain or riders who get caught doping and team doctors and other support personnel that have been involved in scandal after scandal and DSes who have cheated in their own careers? Do I or aurelio or others who are critical of doping in the sport cause more damage than Armstrong publicly chasing down Simeoni and zipping his lips?
The fact that you need talent to achieve success in any field is not an issue - but not all success is necessarily predicated on talent alone.0
