Vuelta Stage 17 Spoiler

poppit · September 2012

Vino'sGhost wrote:

poppit wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

poppit wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

alanjay wrote:

poppit wrote:

Can't watch it, seems like we've gone back to the bad old days, drugs, deals done, etc.

+1 absolute joke this GT

Another pit swamping guardian reader

I feel quite sorry for you, you're obviously quite an obnoxious person who just likes to spit out anonymous insults.

Save you pity for someone that needs or cares for it. TBH i dont feel anything for you as youre an anonymous person who seems unable to see that deals get done and always have got done, and always will get done. If you cant see that theres precious little hope for an informed decision or comment.

Im just going to enjoy what has become one of the most entertaining and hard fought GTs in years.

There are ways of making comments without being obnoxious or insulting

Or patronising with a self assumed superiority. A usual response (that or indignation or offence) from the limited to draw attention from there own shortcomings.

The moral being, don't feed the trolls.

ratsbeyfus · September 2012

Vino'sGhost wrote:

I think we should enjoy the spectacle, I cant see any obvious doping and the puritanical approach some people have is bizarre.

If people don't enjoy it, don't believe it or feel they are personally owed an as yet un received personal grovelling apology and plea for forgiveness then don't watch it.

Simples

Thanks for the advice Black Panther. I enjoyed the stage and I believed it by turning down the volume on my nagging-doubt-ometer. You can be a fan of pro-cycling, watch it and enjoy it, but also want it to change. Don't get too nasty with your responses.

Ave claves, simples, yawn, etc, etc.

Abdoujaparov · September 2012

Great stage, tinged with a little bit of suspicion. Still as others have said, J-Rod may still be in red if Katusha didn't collectively put in the worst performance of their lives. Everything that could have gone wrong went wrong for J-Rod. Got to feel sorry for him.

On balance, I reckon Contador probably did that clean.

Vino'sGhost · September 2012

poppit wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

poppit wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

poppit wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

alanjay wrote:

poppit wrote:

Can't watch it, seems like we've gone back to the bad old days, drugs, deals done, etc.

+1 absolute joke this GT

Another pit swamping guardian reader

I feel quite sorry for you, you're obviously quite an obnoxious person who just likes to spit out anonymous insults.

Save you pity for someone that needs or cares for it. TBH i dont feel anything for you as youre an anonymous person who seems unable to see that deals get done and always have got done, and always will get done. If you cant see that theres precious little hope for an informed decision or comment.

Im just going to enjoy what has become one of the most entertaining and hard fought GTs in years.

There are ways of making comments without being obnoxious or insulting

Or patronising with a self assumed superiority. A usual response (that or indignation or offence) from the limited to draw attention from there own shortcomings.

The moral being, don't feed the trolls.

My point well confirmed by your response. Have another last word if you want I'm going for a ride.

bompington · September 2012

Vino'sGhost wrote:

I think we should enjoy the spectacle, I cant see any obvious doping and the puritanical approach some people have is bizarre.

If people don't enjoy it, don't believe it or feel they are personally owed an as yet un received personal grovelling apology and plea for forgiveness then don't watch it.

Simples

And what if you can see obvious doping? Should we still just enjoy it then? At least, I admit "all I care about is excitement, never mind the rules" is more consistent than "all I care about is excitement and at least appearing to play by the rules", or "I care about the rules until I get all excited about a race". I don't think "we're all hypocrites" cuts it as an excuse either, it's the lazy road to nihilism.
Those of us who care about cycling, perhaps despite our best intentions, and want to believe that there are clean riders out there are, certainly, making a leap of faith: to some extent you have to make your own judgement about the evidence on any rider. But once I do (and I don't mean that I have a closed mind, I have changed opinions on at least 3 things since the internet was invented ;-)) I find it hard to take pleasure in the likes of AC, however exciting the racing.

As for being owed an apology, I would say that sporting cheats do actually owe an apology to their fans, not to mention sponsors, because they are actually cheating them. Just because my individual opinion is of no interest to a professional rider does not make this any less true.

calvjones · September 2012

Just to be clear: I think yesterday's performance proves beyond doubt that Menchov is now clean.

ratsbeyfus · September 2012

calvjones wrote:

Just to be clear: I think yesterday's performance proves beyond doubt that Menchov is now clean.

If he isn't he should definitely get his money back.

Vino'sGhost · September 2012

bompington wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

I think we should enjoy the spectacle, I cant see any obvious doping and the puritanical approach some people have is bizarre.

If people don't enjoy it, don't believe it or feel they are personally owed an as yet un received personal grovelling apology and plea for forgiveness then don't watch it.

Simples

And what if you can see obvious doping? Should we still just enjoy it then? At least, I admit "all I care about is excitement, never mind the rules" is more consistent than "all I care about is excitement and at least appearing to play by the rules", or "I care about the rules until I get all excited about a race". I don't think "we're all hypocrites" cuts it as an excuse either, it's the lazy road to nihilism.
Those of us who care about cycling, perhaps despite our best intentions, and want to believe that there are clean riders out there are, certainly, making a leap of faith: to some extent you have to make your own judgement about the evidence on any rider. But once I do (and I don't mean that I have a closed mind, I have changed opinions on at least 3 things since the internet was invented ;-)) I find it hard to take pleasure in the likes of AC, however exciting the racing.

As for being owed an apology, I would say that sporting cheats do actually owe an apology to their fans, not to mention sponsors, because they are actually cheating them. Just because my individual opinion is of no interest to a professional rider does not make this any less true.

Im not sure many sponsors of the proffesional peleoton arent aware of the issues and havent considered the potential downsides of a failed test or generally poor season. Its a pan european and american entertainment sport and people
than ever are seeing trek and rabbobank and nissan and all the others on the TV.
You could argue that sponsors are complicit in the doping but beyond these and similar boards not many people really give a hoot.

Perhaps the only apology owed to sponsors is for getting caught.

bompington · September 2012

Vino'sGhost wrote:

...

How's your ride going?

Vino'sGhost · September 2012

bompington wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

...

How's your ride going?

i may have to turbo infront of the TV again.

ratsbeyfus · September 2012

Vino'sGhost wrote:

bompington wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

...

How's your ride going?

i may have to turbo infront of the TV again.

Jeremy Kyle show?

Vino'sGhost · September 2012

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

bompington wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

...

How's your ride going?

i may have to turbo infront of the TV again.

Jeremy Kyle show?

Are you on it again?

mroli · September 2012

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Im not sure many sponsors of the proffesional peleoton arent aware of the issues and havent considered the potential downsides of a failed test or generally poor season. Its a pan european and american entertainment sport and people than ever are seeing trek and rabbobank and nissan and all the others on the TV.
You could argue that sponsors are complicit in the doping but beyond these and similar boards not many people really give a hoot.

Perhaps the only apology owed to sponsors is for getting caught.

I don't believe that people don't give a hoot about doping other than "some t*ssers" (quote Wiggins) on forums at all. For example the following story (if you can read it on your ride!): http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/ju ... urdefrance

Sponsors show a reluctance to get involved (rightly or wrongly) in cycling because of the doping associations. As do TV companies who are the oxygen that sponsors require.

blazing_saddles · September 2012

Dorset Boy wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Saw the highlights this morning - a fantastic stage, the sort that will be written about and known for many years to come. I thought Harmon's commentating was superb as well - damn that ruddy question mark that will always hang over Contador... I'd love AC to come clean about his distant and recent past in the new 'perestroika' climate sweeping through cycling, ditch Riis and sign up to a more 'transparent' team.

That's the crux though isn't it. If you get caught doping and come clean about it, and repent, then people will respect you, and be happy for you to win post doing your time.

It is the unrepentent doper that continues to win post ban that get's people.

Bertie had a chance to show contrition when he was caught, but didn't and remains guided by some seriously dodgy characters.

With regards to deals with other team members, so long as no 'financial rewards' result, then there's no problem - as others have said, it's part of racing.

To what level would he have had to confess, based upon the tiny amount of clen in his system?
The fact that remains that whatever folks choose to assume, there is a possibility (however small) that it was accidentally ingested.
What would be required to make him a repentant doper in your eyes?
I suspect a full blown transfusion, epo type confession.
Just like the one David Millar never gave, until backed right into a corner.

Now, he is universally accepted as being squeaky clean, probably with just cause.

Contador's performance was fundamentally believable, as was last year's Tour.

Given the minimal amount of evidence against him and the fact that he was with a km of being caught and passed by several riders, I would suggest it best to accept the performance on face value for now.

ratsbeyfus · September 2012

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Now, he is universally accepted as being squeaky clean, probably with just cause.

Which universe are you talking about?

Of course if AC has never doped he has nothing to 'fess up to. If he has however, and is now riding clean and determined to continue doing so it would probably be better in the long run to do it now, rather than the death by a thousand cuts method of LA.

blazing_saddles · September 2012

mroli wrote:

I don't believe that people don't give a hoot about doping other than "some t*ssers" (quote Wiggins) on forums at all. For example the following story (if you can read it on your ride!): http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/ju ... urdefrance

Sponsors show a reluctance to get involved (rightly or wrongly) in cycling because of the doping associations. As do TV companies who are the oxygen that sponsors require.

Currently, we have Brad staunchly refusing to come out of the closet over Armstrong's doping and Nike and Trek standing solidly behind their terribly tarnished talisman.
So, I'm not sure the current facts match your analysis.

Of course, Armstrong may well be unique in this respect.

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Now, he is universally accepted as being squeaky clean, probably with just cause.

Which universe are you talking about?

Of course if AC has never doped he has nothing to 'fess up to. If he has however, and is now riding clean and determined to continue doing so it would probably be better in the long run to do it now, rather than the death by a thousand cuts method of LA.

I meant to add: 'more or less', but was aware of the verbal diarrhoea factor.

Team4Luke · September 2012

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

Matt_as wrote:

The effects of drugs like EPO and taking drug transfusions don't stay in your system indefinitely. Once you don't take it long enough which only a matter of months at most you red blood cell count will go back to your natural amount (or possibly even less if you have done it so often your body can slow down its natural production) and there will be no lasting effects.

I'm sorry but that is cack. Doping enables an athlete to train/race past their natural ability. As a result even when you come off them there is still a significant training effect.

exactly, also, importantly providing you maintain your training at the same level you drug-trained at, then there must be a lasting training effect, how long or what science there is around to prove it or not would be interesting to read.

poppit · September 2012

Vino'sGhost wrote:

poppit wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

poppit wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

poppit wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

alanjay wrote:

poppit wrote:

Can't watch it, seems like we've gone back to the bad old days, drugs, deals done, etc.

+1 absolute joke this GT

Another pit swamping guardian reader

I feel quite sorry for you, you're obviously quite an obnoxious person who just likes to spit out anonymous insults.

Save you pity for someone that needs or cares for it. TBH i dont feel anything for you as youre an anonymous person who seems unable to see that deals get done and always have got done, and always will get done. If you cant see that theres precious little hope for an informed decision or comment.

Im just going to enjoy what has become one of the most entertaining and hard fought GTs in years.

There are ways of making comments without being obnoxious or insulting

Or patronising with a self assumed superiority. A usual response (that or indignation or offence) from the limited to draw attention from there own shortcomings.

The moral being, don't feed the trolls.

My point well confirmed by your response. Have another last word if you want I'm going for a ride.

Thank you I will

frenchfighter · September 2012

Blazing Saddles wrote:

To what level would he have had to confess, based upon the tiny amount of clen in his system?
The fact that remains that whatever folks choose to assume, there is a possibility (however small) that it was accidentally ingested.
What would be required to make him a repentant doper in your eyes?
I suspect a full blown transfusion, epo type confession.
Just like the one David Millar never gave, until backed right into a corner.

Now, he is universally accepted as being squeaky clean, probably with just cause.

Contador's performance was fundamentally believable, as was last year's Tour.

Given the minimal amount of evidence against him and the fact that he was with a km of being caught and passed by several riders, I would suggest it best to accept the performance on face value for now.

Sensible points.

Team4Luke · September 2012

Matt_as wrote:

OK answer this. If the effects of blood doing don't wear off, why do riders need to take the risk of using them during races and why would a rider need to use the rest day to charge up? Obviously a lot of people on this forum have an opinion about things even though they have no understanding of those things!!

Guess it's like training, at my best I don't want to be any worse, just doesn't feel as good, so keep the training up, could be case of timing or mis-timing when using performance enhancing products, well we do know this is in fact actually the case. So, riders need to top up often to maintain a certain level.
I honestly would like to believe they are clean or race clean but just sits uncomfortably with what I watched. Valverde was the weakest of the three but turned into the strongest yesterday, Conty has been attacking all week but they only last a matter of metres and suddenly does a 20km attack. Certainly since the greater crack down on drugs, it has been very very noticeable that considerable efforts don't last as long as they used to and british riders can now not only keep up but win.
At the least I can only hope they are race clean and continuous use will likely be caught out these days in season or race.

Vino2007 · September 2012

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

Vino2007 wrote:

I don't think tiralongo was repaying contador, he was in the situation that if he rode with contador he would get the stage win. Why do people overthink everything.

Because otherwise this message board would be very dull.

That'd be why he was putting in some uncessarily stonking turns.

If he was going for the win he'd have worked out Contador was gunning for GC and sat on his wheel.

:roll:

Nice one Rick Astley with the roll eyes smiley. So he would sit on the wheel for 25km from that intermediate sprint and expect contador to keep it just them two at the finish? Yea dead on. He was dropped by contador after sitting on for a long turn, if he was riding solely for contador he would have bagged himself and peeled off. Ofcourse he was helping contador but it was for self gains, not past favours.

mfin · September 2012

Blazing Saddles wrote:

To what level would he have had to confess, based upon the tiny amount of clen in his system?
The fact that remains that whatever folks choose to assume, there is a possibility (however small) that it was accidentally ingested.
What would be required to make him a repentant doper in your eyes?
I suspect a full blown transfusion, epo type confession.
Just like the one David Millar never gave, until backed right into a corner.

Now, he is universally accepted as being squeaky clean, probably with just cause.

Contador's performance was fundamentally believable, as was last year's Tour.

Given the minimal amount of evidence against him and the fact that he was with a km of being caught and passed by several riders, I would suggest it best to accept the performance on face value for now.

In answer to ' To what level would he have had to confess, based upon the tiny amount of clen in his system?', well, he'd have to admit to the blood transfusions he's done, both as the true explanation of the Clen in his system, and the Clen taking itself which he was doing, plus all the other previous doping he has done taking us back to Puerto and before. Then he might be a 'repentant doper'.

He's still a BRILLIANT cyclist and racer though, even if he is a complete fairy-tale generating twerp.

(Ive got no comment on whether he's still doping based on yesterday specifically, but I don't believe he's now clean generally)

alanjay · September 2012

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Saw the highlights this morning - a fantastic stage, the sort that will be written about and known for many years to come. I thought Harmon's commentating was superb as well - damn that ruddy question mark that will always hang over Contador... I'd love AC to come clean about his distant and recent past in the new 'perestroika' climate sweeping through cycling, ditch Riis and sign up to a more 'transparent' team.

That's the crux though isn't it. If you get caught doping and come clean about it, and repent, then people will respect you, and be happy for you to win post doing your time.

It is the unrepentent doper that continues to win post ban that get's people.

Bertie had a chance to show contrition when he was caught, but didn't and remains guided by some seriously dodgy characters.

With regards to deals with other team members, so long as no 'financial rewards' result, then there's no problem - as others have said, it's part of racing.

To what level would he have had to confess, based upon the tiny amount of clen in his system?
The fact that remains that whatever folks choose to assume, there is a possibility (however small) that it was accidentally ingested.
What would be required to make him a repentant doper in your eyes?
I suspect a full blown transfusion, epo type confession.
Just like the one David Millar never gave, until backed right into a corner.

Now, he is universally accepted as being squeaky clean, probably with just cause.

Contador's performance was fundamentally believable, as was last year's Tour.

Given the minimal amount of evidence against him and the fact that he was with a km of being caught and passed by several riders, I would suggest it best to accept the performance on face value for now.

I'm sure there's loads of riders with the initials AC that can be on blood bags....

Turfle · September 2012

Simply put Contador and Valverde attacking 60k (or whatever it was) into the stage following the 2nd rest day, and cracking someone who previously looked uncrackable, is going to raise some eyebrows.

blazing_saddles · September 2012

alanjay wrote:

I'm sure there's loads of riders with the initials AC that can be on blood bags....

Well, that's a different matter.
I presume, you are now talking about OP and 2006.
I don't remember any blood bags with AC on them.
Just Dr F's notes with AC, "same as JJ or nothing" in the column.
I may be wrong.

AC? Just to muddy your waters. Antonio Colom of Astana. Now he did come up trumps for EPO, in 2009.

bompington · September 2012

Blazing Saddles wrote:

alanjay wrote:

I'm sure there's loads of riders with the initials AC that can be on blood bags....

Well, that's a different matter.
I presume, you are now talking about OP and 2006.
I don't remember any blood bags with AC on them.
Just Dr F's notes with AC, "same as JJ or nothing" in the column.
I may be wrong.

AC? Just to muddy your waters. Antonio Colom of Astana. Now he did come up trumps for EPO, in 2009.

Just as well that all AC (whoever he may be) only needs to do a simple DNA test to prove that he was nothing to do with Fuentes, then.

RichN95. · September 2012

Blazing Saddles wrote:

AC? Just to muddy your waters. Antonio Colom of Astana. Now he did come up trumps for EPO, in 2009.

There's no doubt AC is Contador - the list exactly matchedthe Liberty Seguros 2005 Tour team.

For me with Contador, it's not any particular performance or even the special steak sauce - it's that he routinely works with the sport's dodgiest characters, despite being able to pick and choose who he likes. If he's clean then he is not only incredibly unlucky, but an extraordinarily bad judge of character. Almost ever DS, doctor or trainer he has worked with has been banned, arrested, jailed or is facing a ban.

It reminds me of something Brian Clough allegedly once said to Justin Fashanu - If you're not gay, why do you keep going to gay bars?

PuttyKnees · September 2012

My impression is that it comes out worse for a rider if they admit than if they don't, so it's not a tremendous advantage for a rider to fess up. Saying nothing is less hassle, you can never be tied down and for something that's a masking agent, well it's fairly easy to argue that it's not actually doping (see inrng). Well, that seems to be the case anyway.

I don't know if Condator is doping (clearly) and it was a great piece of tactical play, but it's obvious as to why people like doped up riders. Even if he was doped, some of the reaction on here says it all - it's about entertainment. I can understand that, but I personally feel disappointed by that perspective. For all the bluster, a true champion shouldn't be taking PEDs. Is the message that it's OK to dope as long as give entertainment, be the the one to give to all the kids enthusiastic about cycling?

Great racing and yeah, what a way to win a race, taking a chance and bringing it home. I just hope it doesn't turn out that he had "help".

mroli · September 2012

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Currently, we have Brad staunchly refusing to come out of the closet over Armstrong's doping and Nike and Trek standing solidly behind their terribly tarnished talisman.
So, I'm not sure the current facts match your analysis.

Of course, Armstrong may well be unique in this respect.

Firstly in relation to Wiggins: "Those things I said then stand true today. Nothing has changed. I still feel those emotions and I stand by those statements now" in this interview: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... dope-drugs

This is what he said about Landis: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins ... -for-fools

I think Wiggins' position on doping is pretty clear, regardless of whether he has specifically named Armstrong or not.

In relation to the sponsors, yes Trek and Nike have stood behind Armstrong. I think you would agree that there are a hell of a lot of sponsors that haven't got involved with the sport and a lack of media coverage due to doping issues though (conversely I accept that there is a lot of media coverage with doping however).

I'm not sure what this has got to do with my original point which was linked to my failure to get really engaged with a Vuelta where I take it on face value that no-one is doping, but I find my enjoyment tainted by the fact that nos 1 and 2 are both convicted dopers unlike the Giro where Hesjedal is (afaik) clean and the TDF with Wiggins ditto. Not an anglo-saxon thing either, was a Sastre fan too.

I know Rick says I'm following the wrong sport, but if you just accept it, well, that's no good is it?

rick_chasey · September 2012

mroli wrote:

I know Rick says I'm following the wrong sport, but if you just accept it, well, that's no good is it?

.

I don't think your opinion changes much, unfortunately.

None of ours do.

Ultimately I watch cycling because I enjoy seeing cycle racing on the road.

As bad as doping is, it's tough to visualise on the road most of the time - hence all these discussions about are they aren't they.

It's not like diving in football, where it's really obvious and stops the game. Doping doesn't really stop the racing, only changes a) how fast they go (which, given professional speeds is hard to tell anyway), and occasionally how attacking or not it is - but that difference is often drowned out by the noise of other more pressing matters, tactics, conditions etc etc.

Vuelta Stage 17 Spoiler

Comments

Categories

Vuelta Stage 17 **Spoiler**

Comments

Categories

Vuelta Stage 17 Spoiler