Oscar Pereiro: A re-evaluation

josame
josame Posts: 1,162
edited April 2009 in Pro race
How will history see this guy?

A worthy winner

or

Embarassed that he is given the jersey over someone 'just like him'
'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'

Comments

  • Clemson Cycling
    Clemson Cycling Posts: 49
    edited April 2009
    in my opinion, no one won the tour in 2006
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    Roger Walkowiak mk II.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Walkowiak

    People will look at the past-winners list in 50 years time and think "whoooo?"

    Classy rider, nice guy from what I've read, but he won't be remembered as a grand champion.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    He should be remembered as the fastest rider of 2006 who didn't dope (we assume).
  • Clemson Cycling
    Clemson Cycling Posts: 49
    I think luckiest might be a better word then fastest
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,738
    He will always be remembered.
    Not for winning the 2006 Tour, that was a mere bagatelle; but for the far greater achievement of towing George Hincapie over 6 cols, to the finest victories of his career, at the 2005 Tour. :roll:
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • Clemson Cycling
    Clemson Cycling Posts: 49
    He will always be remembered.
    Not for winning the 2006 Tour, that was a mere bagatelle; but for the far greater achievement of towing George Hincapie over 6 cols, to the finest victories of his career, at the 2005 Tour. Rolling Eyes
    Hincapie had nothing to lose
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    Clemson Cycling wrote:
    I think luckiest might be a better word then fastest

    Somehow I don't think you can luck your way onto a Tour de France podium. He got into the right break, the other teams made a tactical screwup. He saw his chance and took it. Clever, not lucky.
  • Clemson Cycling
    Clemson Cycling Posts: 49
    He was given 28 mins in the one of the weakest fields in recent years (after the peloton was decimated by a doping scandal) in the TdeF and lost to a cheater, so was the winner by default. I feel like he was pretty lucky.
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    The object of the game is to finish the race in the least amount of time possible. It doesn't matter how you do it (within the rules).

    Pedal faster than the other fellas. Luck doesn't come into it.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    afx237vi wrote:
    The object of the game is to finish the race in the least amount of time possible. It doesn't matter how you do it (within the rules).

    Pedal faster than the other fellas. Luck doesn't come into it.

    Tell that to the people in the Paris-Roubaix thread... :wink:
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • Trev36
    Trev36 Posts: 92
    A race like the TDF is far to long to be 'lucky' to win or podium. You might get a lucky day, but hardly a lucky 21 days.

    The only place I see Pereiro as being lucky was that the GC riders/teams did not consider him a threat once he lost time in an earlier stage, they allowed him into the break that regained him all his lost time. He was lucky that they weren't watching him close enough and underestimated him. He still had a lot of riding to do to remain in contention for the lead.
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    It was Phonaks own dumb fault for letting him up the road with 2 team mates and deciding the weather was a bit crappy so they wouldn't bother riding. He rode a great race after that too.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    johnfinch wrote:
    He should be remembered as the fastest rider of 2006 who didn't dope (we assume).

    You mean aside from his maybe link to Puerto?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    "I am ready to do anything, but if I have to use DNA to demonstrate my innocence, I will leave cycling, because it’s obvious that cycling like that isn’t worth it.”
    Maybe this sounds more convincing in Spanish?

    He won the 2006 Tour by chance, he was never a candidate but made his luck. The fact that he's done next to nothing before or after speaks volumes. Not to knock him, he's a nice guy and did his best, you can't win over 21 days by luck but collecting the win after Landis was disqualified weeks after the race is an embarrassing way to win.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Foinavon

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0n--QhZQgI
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • Unsheath
    Unsheath Posts: 49
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    He will always be remembered.
    Not for winning the 2006 Tour, that was a mere bagatelle; but for the far greater achievement of towing George Hincapie over 6 cols, to the finest victories of his career, at the 2005 Tour. :roll:

    Ha, remember that stage to Pla-d’Adet vividly. And to think they had pretensions for Big George to be a GC contender for 2006. .
  • ms_tree
    ms_tree Posts: 1,405
    He did win quite a lot of stuff beforehand and if you read any interviews with Oscar you see that he regards himself as a rouleur who helps leaders and takes chances when he's given them. Which he did in '06 - also there was the 'yellow jersey effect'. He was pleased with his 2nd place but all the business of Floyd 'Kid Rock' Landis messed up his head with all the media attention and it's taken him a while to get back on track then he had that horrible fall last year.
    O course it's luck - if Valverde hadn't fallen off he'd have just been a super domestique, if Landis hadn't done that shonky ride and got busted then he wouldn't have won.
    I'm sure we all look back over the history of the winners and see names and think - who?
    'Google can bring back a hundred thousand answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.'
    Neil Gaiman
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    Ms Tree wrote:
    He did win quite a lot of stuff beforehand
    On average, he won one race per year and took two 10th overall places on the Tour in the two preceding years.

    Still, his palmares is marginally more prolific than Carlos Sastre's. But Sastre actively attacked for the win, Pereiro's win* will always come with an asterisk next to it.

    * race winner Floyd Landis was disqualified following a positive doping offence.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    iainf72 wrote:
    johnfinch wrote:
    He should be remembered as the fastest rider of 2006 who didn't dope (we assume).

    You mean aside from his maybe link to Puerto?

    Which explains my use of the brackets. I should have added a :wink: to clarify that.
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    He's a legitimate winner. He is the fastest non-disqualified rider.

    Should Contador have an asterix next to his victory. If the chicken hadn't been thrown out of the race, what step of the podium would Bertie have occupied?
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • shinyhelmut
    shinyhelmut Posts: 1,364
    Timoid. wrote:
    Should Contador have an asterix next to his victory.

    Dunno, what does Obelix think? :D

    In my opinion yes, but more to do with Puerto than Rasmussen's early bath.
  • lloyd_bower
    lloyd_bower Posts: 664
    Timoid. wrote:
    He's a legitimate winner. He is the fastest non-disqualified rider.

    Should Contador have an asterix next to his victory. If the chicken hadn't been thrown out of the race, what step of the podium would Bertie have occupied?

    Agree, and if the chicken wasn't there that year, Evans would probably have won it.

Categories