talent
Comments
-
Monty Dog wrote:Back to the original topic of Daves 1's post regarding talent and I'm firmly of the view that in recent years the GT's have become a pharmaceutical irrelevance and that success appears to have very little to do with racing abilities. Prior to about 1987, the best riders were winning both 1-day races and GTs but it now looks that the spectre of doping has had the most profound impact on GT results - is it co-incidence that a small number of riders have had a virtual monopoly on GT wins and their abilities to win 1-day races is severely diminished? As Aurelio says, the evidence would suggest that GT victory is probably more influenced by an individual's physiological response to doping that just to talent. Unlike Dave, the timing of my education and career probably got in the way of any serious sporting ambitions, but I don't believe that diminishes my abilities to make comments - but a lot like Aurelio, I find the repeated 'blind faith' and hero-worship of 'fanboys' both tiresome and I don't believe is in the best long-term interest of the sport.
good points MD, my experience is off being low down the placings, making it inside time cuts in amatuer international events in 50th place,,,12 minute ramp test of 450w-460w was approx when I was at 21, 6.2 w per kg I think...was 67kg I even once placed ahead of Mr Guesdon-have the GC sheets still -was in a prologue...but not for the win :-) well down ....and I was way off the pace in GC.... I see what you mean about Indurain and Armstrong, but not to speculate too much on the past, wasn't Greg Lemond's hunting accident to deprive him of 3 IMO definite Tour wins even. And Indurain, Delagado describes his climbing in 88 on the peyresourde, why didn't Roy Knickman blosom the way he was expected to...couldn't all be EPO. You could well be right, you probably but not definitely are. WHat about freaks of nature like Kelly and Jalabert who could combine both classics and GTs?0
