And the hits just keep on coming! 3 more riders positive

moray_gub

frenchfighter wrote:

I will only reply to people I consider intelligent, sensible, mature and rational (for the most part). If you don't fit this then don't bother commenting

I think you actually believe that you have some sort of sway on who comments and who doesnt :!:

Richrd2205

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

P.S. I don't like this witch hunting of frenchfighter, even if I've just pointed out a discrepancy myself.

I would agree very strongly, but there's a balance here. Some threads have certainly turned into witch hunts.
Saying that, FF can be his/her own worst enemy & fantastically rude at times.
So at the moment, this thread is a case of making your own (fairly lumpy & inconsistent) bed & having to lie on it...
If we all avoided ad hominem attacks & followed the thread as it evolved, we'd not be in this position.
(Which applies to a significant number of posters here, not just one!)
As it stands, Dennis' advice is actually quite good
*falls over at having said something so weird*

frenchfighter

The typical trolls have appeared and are attempting to ruin a debate yet again.

I assume they have contributed nothing of value (I cannot confirm as I will not read a word of what they say).

Richard why don't you put your opinion into the current debate as at the moment you have contributed nothing to it other than trying to pass judgement on me. Have I complained about a 'witch hunt'? No. As far as I am aware I am debating with a few people and they all seem to disagree with me to one extent or the other. Am I bothered by this? No. I've never followed others or never needed the comfort of others agreement.

You could start by giving your opinion on Contador, then providing 'proof' of his doping which others seem incapable of doing if you think he is a doper, then comparing the 'proof' with the proof against Lance (some members think the proof is equal between the two, which is ludicrous), then maybe end with a new slant.

moray_gub

Yea we have all seen how much you are not bothered.


I will only reply to people I consider intelligent, sensible, mature and rational (for the most part). If you don't fit this then don't bother commenting as I wont even read what you write let alone reply to it.

disgruntledgoat

I think any unbiased observer would conclude that the evidence against Valverde is more concrete than that against Armstrong. The case against Armstrong, and I'm trying to be impartial here, is built up of a mass of circumstantial evidence topped off with a dope test that broke procedure from a 5 year old sample and is, as such, unsanctionable.

The case against Valverde is, well... bags of his blood found in the fridge of a gynaecologist who was running a doping ring. It's exactly the same proof as Ullrich had levelled against him and Basso to boot.

Richrd2205

frenchfighter wrote:

Richard why don't you put your opinion into the current debate as at the moment you have contributed nothing to it other than trying to pass judgement on me. Have I complained about a 'witch hunt'? No. As far as I am aware I am debating with a few people and they all seem to disagree with me to one extent or the other. Am I bothered by this? No. I've never followed others or never needed the comfort of others agreement.

You could start by giving your opinion on Contador, then providing 'proof' of his doping which others seem incapable of doing if you think he is a doper, then comparing the 'proof' with the proof against Lance (some members think the proof is equal between the two, which is ludicrous), then maybe end with a new slant.

I'll think you'll find that my post was about the tone of the argument in general terms & asking all parties to moderate their tone. Skewing what I said is not a pleasant way to respond. Nor is skewing the thread to ignore most of it & turn it into another Contador thread.

Since you've asked, Contador doesn't look whiter than white: he has consistently been able to beat proven dopers. He even pretty much kept pace with Rasmussen in his first tour victory.
Modern doping gives a 15-20% advantage, yet Contador can consistently beat folk with this advantage?
Someone who can produce some performances that are right at the edge of what is possible clean & possibly beyond with links to Puerto is not someone I'd bet on being clean. To be fair, I'll not condemn either. Just regard in a somewhat cynical manner.

I'm not sure what "proof" you're wanting?
So if you could let us know what the acceptable level of proof is, then we could answer your question in the manner you'd like. "Proving" either way is normally only possible if someone has been sanctioned for a positive, but sometimes this is insufficient (in Landis' case, for example)
We all know that there is no positive test, so if you are asking for one, it's a rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions tend not to be useful tools in written debate but. Nor is saying that someone hasn't tested positive often seen as indicative of whether someone is clean or not.

Contador seems like a decent bloke, seems well liked & is an attacking rider who is often enjoyable to watch. But I regard these things as independent from those that precede...

blazing_saddles

frenchfighter wrote:

This is the 2nd time you have mentioned the Spanish getting clear. Can you provide concrete examples of all the key people in Puerto, their nationalities and the outcomes.

I repeat that it was the Spanish who first brought Puerto to light, so why would they have done this if, given what you think, they are going to behave improperly subsequently?

What is "behave properly" supposed to mean?
Is this a clever piece of English double talk?
Is this a way of saying Spanish have investigated the Spanish riders on the OP list, or not?

We have been asked for concrete proof.
The concrete proof, as eveyone knows, is sitting in those blood bags and under Spanish legal lockdown.
No DNA comparison tests allowed.

A simple answer to this complex question.

So, who considers the Spanish have behaved in the best interests of the sport?
I certainly don't.
It's been a cover up, for when the investigation kicked over the stone, they did so, not fully realising what lay underneath.
Since then, it's been a major cover up, with the "foriegn" cyclists becoming the collateral damage.

As for Armstrong. If there were concrete proof against him, he would be/have been serving a ban.
What we have is simply a greater (vast) quantity of circumstantial evidence.

One piece of circumstatial evidence is enough to cast a degree of suspicion, without condemning an individual as a doper.
There is an ocean of difference.

Without a proper conclusion to the OP investigation, on the Spanish part, this circumstantial evidence remains active.

iainf72

Blazing Saddles wrote:

So, who considers the Spanish have behaved in the best interests of the sport?
I certainly don't.

And nor do the IOC. They've said the Spanish handling of Puerto has damaged their chances of hosting the Olympics in 2016.

Pokerface

Off on a tangent here - and not a dig at all - but a genuine question - why wouldn't the 'best cyclist in the world' want to prove it by winning the World Championships? Especially when the course suits?

Kléber

Too much racing. He started in Oz and did the Giro-Tour combo and would have had to think about the Vuelta too to sharpen up for the end of season. A lot of work for one day, and the US team isn't too hot either.

iainf72

I think he meant Contador.

He's tired too though.

Pokerface

iainf72 wrote:

I think he meant Contador.

He's tired too though.

I did mean Contador. How can he be 'tired' when he effectively hasn't raced since the Tour? Whilst others have gone on to ride the Vuleta and are still doing the World's?

Does a one day race take that much preparation, etc? For a rider who can be sitting on the beach one minute and then winning the Giro the next - it seems a no-brainer. Disappointed that he's not going.

calvjones

Kléber wrote:

Too much racing. He started in Oz and did the Giro-Tour combo and would have had to think about the Vuelta too to sharpen up for the end of season. A lot of work for one day, and the US team isn't too hot either.

I read this as

calvjones

Pokerface wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I think he meant Contador.

He's tired too though.

I did mean Contador. How can he be 'tired' when he effectively hasn't raced since the Tour? Whilst others have gone on to ride the Vuleta and are still doing the World's?

Does a one day race take that much preparation, etc? For a rider who can be sitting on the beach one minute and then winning the Giro the next - it seems a no-brainer. Disappointed that he's not going.

Why extend your season to be a super domestique for Valverde? AC is only the 4th most likely Spaniard to win in Mendriso. If that.

Pokerface

calvjones wrote:

Why extend your season to be a super domestique for Valverde? AC is only the 4th most likely Spaniard to win in Mendriso. If that.

Not only could he win the RR - but also the TT. I mean - he beat Cancellara once already this year...

And why only the 4th best Spanish rider? Or is this course (with all it's climbing) not perfectly suited for him?

andyp

Contador has no pedigree in one day races whereas Freire, Valverde and Samuel Sanchez do. They'd get the nod ahead of Contador when it comes to leadership.

Too often people think that being the best GT rider equates to being able to win any race you choose but it doesn't work like that, especially in one day races where risks have to be taken.

calvjones

Pokerface wrote:

calvjones wrote:

Why extend your season to be a super domestique for Valverde? AC is only the 4th most likely Spaniard to win in Mendriso. If that.

Not only could he win the RR - but also the TT. I mean - he beat Cancellara once already this year...

And why only the 4th best Spanish rider? Or is this course (with all it's climbing) not perfectly suited for him?

Wot Andy said. I suspect he could tilt for a medal but it ain't gonna be gold. Beating Fab on a course with a big hill in the 3rd week of a GT and taking him on at the World's in CH are frankly chalk and cheese.

I'm still not sure quite how he beat him in Annecy, but that's a whole 'nuther thread.

blazing_saddles

Pokerface wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I think he meant Contador.

He's tired too though.

I did mean Contador. How can he be 'tired' when he effectively hasn't raced since the Tour? Whilst others have gone on to ride the Vuleta and are still doing the World's?

He didn't ride the heaviest of Spring campaigns, either. Had his feet up from fairly early April, until, June.

I'm disappointed, as I think this RR course is probably the best he's ever likely to find, in terms of being able to rip the field up.
38 ascents of those two climbs. He could have put a lot hurt into the main opposition.

calvjones wrote:

I'm still not sure quite how he beat him in Annecy, but that's a whole 'nuther thread.

No need, that comment alone, should be good for another 5 pages or so.

Kléber

It would be nice to see a GT contender in the rainbow jersey. Who was the last one, Olano?

moray_gub

calvjones wrote:

Wot Andy said. I suspect he could tilt for a medal but it ain't gonna be gold. Beating Fab on a course with a big hill in the 3rd week of a GT and taking him on at the World's in CH are frankly chalk and cheese.

I'm still not sure quite how he beat him in Annecy, but that's a whole 'nuther thread.

Youve answered your own question.

frenchfighter

Kléber wrote:

It would be nice to see a GT contender in the rainbow jersey. Who was the last one, Olano?

Contador will ride the Worlds the next time he will ride the Vuelta which is likely to be next year. He will also ride the Ardennes. He will likely win too - remember who won LBL this year in a beautiful manner?

El Pistolero is not yet 27 so has at least a decade to match records, create new ones and try his legs at any race that takes his fancy if he so wishes.

In any case, the World RR is not really prestigious and is more of a sprint. This year is likely to be different thankfully, yet 8 of the last 10 have been won by sprinters. It is not a good guage for GC riders.

timoid.

frenchfighter wrote:

Kléber wrote:

It would be nice to see a GT contender in the rainbow jersey. Who was the last one, Olano?

In any case, the World RR is not really prestigious and is more of a sprint.

That doesn't make any sense. Is Milan San Remo not prestigious? or Paris Roubaix if more than one finish together in the velodrome?

disgruntledgoat

If it's not prestigious, why do riders like Valverde, Cunego and Bettini covet it? Why did Pantani covet it? Why did Lemond, Hinault, Merckx and Moser covet it?

It IS a big deal. Just beacause Contador isn't fussed doesn't devalue it... the reason grand tour riders don't ride the worlds, especially to win, is firstly, it's move on the calender and secondly because they aren't as hard as they were 20/30 years ago.

takethehighroad

Talk about comments being good for another 5 pages

samiam

frenchfighter wrote:

In any case, the World RR is not really prestigious and is more of a sprint.

Utter nonsense.

blazing_saddles

It is such an unimportant event, that half the Vuelta field ride two of three weeks, just in preparation.
Rather, it makes the Vuelta winner look like a someone chasing the season's scraps.

afx237vi

frenchfighter wrote:

In any case, the World RR is not really prestigious and is more of a sprint. This year is likely to be different thankfully, yet 8 of the last 10 have been won by sprinters. It is not a good guage for GC riders.

W.

T.

F.

dennisn

afx237vi wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

In any case, the World RR is not really prestigious and is more of a sprint. This year is likely to be different thankfully, yet 8 of the last 10 have been won by sprinters. It is not a good guage for GC riders.

W.

T.

F.

+1 He's starting to get "out there".

Pokerface

I hate saying this - but in a small way - he has a point. The point being that on a flat course - it often comes down to a bunch sprint. Therefore not worth riding if you are more of a GT rider.


But in years like this one - where it is hilly and suits a more rounded rider - there is no way you can say it isn't a worthwhile race and a prestigious win.

disgruntledgoat

It's the sheer length of it that makes the challenge though Pokerface, the last pure sprinter i can think of winning it was Cipo in 2002 (I think Friere is more than just a pure sprinter as 3 Worlds will testify). It normally comes down to a sprint from a small group, which does favour a certain type of rider, i'll grant you.