Worlds 2018 - SPOILERS

RichN95.

hypster wrote:

My biggest problem with Valverde is nothing to do with any previous drugs ban but his sudden performances over the last year or so at 37/38 years old. Nothing suspicious about that is there? And please don't troll out Chris Horner winning the Vuelta at 41 again because that sucks also.

What "sudden performances"? He's been predictably consistent for years now.

DeVlaeminck

hypster wrote:

My biggest problem with Valverde is nothing to do with any previous drugs ban but his sudden performances over the last year or so at 37/38 years old. Nothing suspicious about that is there? And please don't troll out Chris Horner winning the Vuelta at 41 again because that sucks also.

There's nothing I admire about Valverde or his style of riding. He constantly maintains he is riding for Nairo Quintana in any race they ride in together but I have never seen ANY evidence of this. This year's Vuelta was a perfect example of this. He's a mealy-mouthed shitbag.

This year's Vuelta was an example of him riding in support - the attack someone on here criticised him for (may have been you, may not have been) was to me clearly an example of him sacrificing his chances with an early long range effort to draw out Quintana's opponents. Quintana was open in his praise for Valverde's help in the Vuelta and was happy to reciprocate when his own hopes went up in smoke - if Quintana himself is happy with Valverde's contribution that says it all.

ddraver

Trouble with that DeV is that I'm increasingly beginning to think that Quintana believes that being a well paid, Top-10 contender is already all the victory he ever needs...

But perhaps that's for another thread.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

hypster wrote:

My biggest problem with Valverde is nothing to do with any previous drugs ban but his sudden performances over the last year or so at 37/38 years old. Nothing suspicious about that is there? And please don't troll out Chris Horner winning the Vuelta at 41 again because that sucks also.

There's nothing I admire about Valverde or his style of riding. He constantly maintains he is riding for Nairo Quintana in any race they ride in together but I have never seen ANY evidence of this. This year's Vuelta was a perfect example of this. He's a mealy-mouthed shitbag.

This year's Vuelta was an example of him riding in support - the attack someone on here criticised him for (may have been you, may not have been) was to me clearly an example of him sacrificing his chances with an early long range effort to draw out Quintana's opponents. Quintana was open in his praise for Valverde's help in the Vuelta and was happy to reciprocate when his own hopes went up in smoke - if Quintana himself is happy with Valverde's contribution that says it all.

Yep, using this year's Vuelta as an example of how bad Valverde is at supporting his team leader is ludicrous.

Vino'sGhost

ddraver wrote:

Trouble with that DeV is that I'm increasingly beginning to think that Quintana believes that being a well paid, Top-10 contender is already all the victory he ever needs...

But perhaps that's for another thread.

Yep a bit like a Ritchey Porte but able to sit on his bike without falling off

Mad_Malx

Vino'sGhost wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Trouble with that DeV is that I'm increasingly beginning to think that Quintana believes that being a well paid, Top-10 contender is already all the victory he ever needs...

But perhaps that's for another thread.

Yep a bit like a Ritchey Porte but able to sit on his bike without falling off

with 2 GTs plus 4 podiums

hypster

Pross wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

hypster wrote:

My biggest problem with Valverde is nothing to do with any previous drugs ban but his sudden performances over the last year or so at 37/38 years old. Nothing suspicious about that is there? And please don't troll out Chris Horner winning the Vuelta at 41 again because that sucks also.

There's nothing I admire about Valverde or his style of riding. He constantly maintains he is riding for Nairo Quintana in any race they ride in together but I have never seen ANY evidence of this. This year's Vuelta was a perfect example of this. He's a mealy-mouthed shitbag.

This year's Vuelta was an example of him riding in support - the attack someone on here criticised him for (may have been you, may not have been) was to me clearly an example of him sacrificing his chances with an early long range effort to draw out Quintana's opponents. Quintana was open in his praise for Valverde's help in the Vuelta and was happy to reciprocate when his own hopes went up in smoke - if Quintana himself is happy with Valverde's contribution that says it all.

Yep, using this year's Vuelta as an example of how bad Valverde is at supporting his team leader is ludicrous.

Seriously? As far as I can tell that is the consistancy that RichN95 was alluding to earlier. I think you're attributing Valverde's actions in the Vuelta to a completely wrong motivation and intention. Attacking early to draw out the opposition? When has that bollocks ever worked?

Vino'sGhost

Mad_Malx wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Trouble with that DeV is that I'm increasingly beginning to think that Quintana believes that being a well paid, Top-10 contender is already all the victory he ever needs...

But perhaps that's for another thread.

Yep a bit like a Ritchey Porte but able to sit on his bike without falling off

with 2 GTs plus 4 podiums

Ha yes, its funny but I always think of him as a nearly man when clearly he's very definitely not. I used to think of Nibili in the same way.

DeVlaeminck

hypster wrote:

Seriously? As far as I can tell that is the consistancy that RichN95 was alluding to earlier. I think you're attributing Valverde's actions in the Vuelta to a completely wrong motivation and intention. Attacking early to draw out the opposition? When has that **** ever worked?

Another example of Valverde sacrificing his own chances with an early attack would be the La Rosiere finish at the Tour this year. Just read the post stage reports, Movistar are quite clear about what they hoped to achieve and that Valverde was being used tactically rather than with an expectation he himself would benefit. You can call them all liars and call Quintana deluded but Valverde appears to be popular in that team so I suspect he is riding to the team plan even if to you he appears to be pursuing personal glory.

kingstongraham

RichN95 wrote:

hypster wrote:

My biggest problem with Valverde is nothing to do with any previous drugs ban but his sudden performances over the last year or so at 37/38 years old. Nothing suspicious about that is there? And please don't troll out Chris Horner winning the Vuelta at 41 again because that sucks also.

What "sudden performances"? He's been predictably consistent for years now.

His predictable consistency has generally involved an inability to last for three weeks though.

bobmcstuff

hypster wrote:

Seriously? As far as I can tell that is the consistancy that RichN95 was alluding to earlier. I think you're attributing Valverde's actions in the Vuelta to a completely wrong motivation and intention. Attacking early to draw out the opposition? When has that **** ever worked?

On the contrary, attacking that early had no chance to ride Valverde into personal glory, I would suggest.

DeVlaeminck

KingstonGraham wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

hypster wrote:

My biggest problem with Valverde is nothing to do with any previous drugs ban but his sudden performances over the last year or so at 37/38 years old. Nothing suspicious about that is there? And please don't troll out Chris Horner winning the Vuelta at 41 again because that sucks also.

What "sudden performances"? He's been predictably consistent for years now.

His predictable consistency has generally involved an inability to last for three weeks though.

He's got 8 grand tour podiums going back to 2003 which isn't bad for someone that can't last 3 weeks. He seems to suffer in the high mountains, the hardest stages are often backloaded in the 3 weeks so he may sometimes lose time in the third week but that's still the case now.

inseine

DeVlaeminck wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

hypster wrote:

My biggest problem with Valverde is nothing to do with any previous drugs ban but his sudden performances over the last year or so at 37/38 years old. Nothing suspicious about that is there? And please don't troll out Chris Horner winning the Vuelta at 41 again because that sucks also.

What "sudden performances"? He's been predictably consistent for years now.

His predictable consistency has generally involved an inability to last for three weeks though.

He's got 8 grand tour podiums going back to 2003 which isn't bad for someone that can't last 3 weeks. He seems to suffer in the high mountains, the hardest stages are often backloaded in the 3 weeks so he may sometimes lose time in the third week but that's still the case now.

I'm fine criticising him for his doping, if you want to, but his palmarès and his general racing style are incredibly impressive.

yorkshireraw

DeVlaeminck wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

hypster wrote:

My biggest problem with Valverde is nothing to do with any previous drugs ban but his sudden performances over the last year or so at 37/38 years old. Nothing suspicious about that is there? And please don't troll out Chris Horner winning the Vuelta at 41 again because that sucks also.

What "sudden performances"? He's been predictably consistent for years now.

His predictable consistency has generally involved an inability to last for three weeks though.

He's got 8 grand tour podiums going back to 2003 which isn't bad for someone that can't last 3 weeks. He seems to suffer in the high mountains, the hardest stages are often backloaded in the 3 weeks so he may sometimes lose time in the third week but that's still the case now.

Indeed - and he's finished top 3 in both Giro and TDF since his ban.
In 2016 he was 3rd / 6th / 12th in the 3 GTs (getting 3rd in the Points class at the Vuelta).
2015 3rd in TDF, and points winner and 7th at the Vuelta.
2014 4th TDF and 3rd at the Vuelta (2nd in the points, 3rd in the Mountains).
etc etc

His all round achievements are ridiculous. He may well be juiced to the gills still, but can't knock his consistency. The only big race I can think of that he hasn't won (that suits him) is Lombardy.....

alanparsons

YorkshireRaw wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

hypster wrote:

My biggest problem with Valverde is nothing to do with any previous drugs ban but his sudden performances over the last year or so at 37/38 years old. Nothing suspicious about that is there? And please don't troll out Chris Horner winning the Vuelta at 41 again because that sucks also.

What "sudden performances"? He's been predictably consistent for years now.

His predictable consistency has generally involved an inability to last for three weeks though.

He's got 8 grand tour podiums going back to 2003 which isn't bad for someone that can't last 3 weeks. He seems to suffer in the high mountains, the hardest stages are often backloaded in the 3 weeks so he may sometimes lose time in the third week but that's still the case now.

Indeed - and he's finished top 3 in both Giro and TDF since his ban.
In 2016 he was 3rd / 6th / 12th in the 3 GTs (getting 3rd in the Points class at the Vuelta).
2015 3rd in TDF, and points winner and 7th at the Vuelta.
2014 4th TDF and 3rd at the Vuelta (2nd in the points, 3rd in the Mountains).
etc etc

His all round achievements are ridiculous. He may well be juiced to the gills still, but can't knock his consistency. The only big race I can think of that he hasn't won (that suits him) is Lombardy.....

I expect the IL Lombardia will be his first propper outing in the rainbows next weekend.

kingstongraham

DeVlaeminck wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

hypster wrote:

My biggest problem with Valverde is nothing to do with any previous drugs ban but his sudden performances over the last year or so at 37/38 years old. Nothing suspicious about that is there? And please don't troll out Chris Horner winning the Vuelta at 41 again because that sucks also.

What "sudden performances"? He's been predictably consistent for years now.

His predictable consistency has generally involved an inability to last for three weeks though.

He's got 8 grand tour podiums going back to 2003 which isn't bad for someone that can't last 3 weeks. He seems to suffer in the high mountains, the hardest stages are often backloaded in the 3 weeks so he may sometimes lose time in the third week but that's still the case now.

Sorry, I meant for the last couple of years. He had declined in GCs throughout 2017 and 2018, and then came back to being able to pretty much stay with the leaders over three weeks and up the steepest climbs.

yorkshireraw

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

hypster wrote:

My biggest problem with Valverde is nothing to do with any previous drugs ban but his sudden performances over the last year or so at 37/38 years old. Nothing suspicious about that is there? And please don't troll out Chris Horner winning the Vuelta at 41 again because that sucks also.

What "sudden performances"? He's been predictably consistent for years now.

His predictable consistency has generally involved an inability to last for three weeks though.

He's got 8 grand tour podiums going back to 2003 which isn't bad for someone that can't last 3 weeks. He seems to suffer in the high mountains, the hardest stages are often backloaded in the 3 weeks so he may sometimes lose time in the third week but that's still the case now.

Sorry, I meant for the last couple of years. He had declined in GCs throughout 2017 and 2018, and then came back to being able to pretty much stay with the leaders over three weeks and up the steepest climbs.

His 'decline' in GTs in 2017 may have been due, in at least a small way, to destroying his knee on stage 1 of the TDF (having not done the Giro) and sitting out the rest of the season no?

Mad_Malx

^In the early season 2017 he was on top form.

yorkshireraw

Mad_Malx wrote:

^In the early season 2017 he was on top form.

exactly. He'd have been a strong contender for another top 5, if not top 3.

takethehighroad

Understandably, people like him for being the consistent racer he is

Understandably, people dislike him for a lack of contrition when he was banned and for his wheelsucking.

I don't think anyone is surprised in these opinions to be honest.

Personally, I admire his race craft, and he's in a long list of riders who were busted in that period and it's incorrect to attribute how contrite people were in their apologies as a means to judge them.

How do you judge someone like Bernard Kohl or Stefan Schumacher, who didn't get a chance to continue racing at the same level?

FocusZing

Valverde is the perfect guy to represent the UCI, CPA and WADA for a year.

TheBigBean

Valverde has ridden the worlds 6 times in the last 10 years. 5 finishes in the top 5 and one 9th.

Impressive 4th from Dumoulin to go with his Giro Tour 2nds.

larkim

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

it's incorrect to attribute how contrite people were in their apologies as a means to judge them.

The rest of your post is sensible enough imho, but I don't follow this logic at all. Surely is entirely reasonable to look at two convicted dopers and judge one to be the "better" athlete because of their level of contrition? Even if they'd have been perfectly happy not to have been caught, once caught a change of heart is good to see / hear surely?

yorkshireraw

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

Understandably, people like him for being the consistent racer he is

Understandably, people dislike him for a lack of contrition when he was banned and for his wheelsucking.

I don't think anyone is surprised in these opinions to be honest.

Personally, I admire his race craft, and he's in a long list of riders who were busted in that period and it's incorrect to attribute how contrite people were in their apologies as a means to judge them.

How do you judge someone like Bernard Kohl or Stefan Schumacher, who didn't get a chance to continue racing at the same level?

You judge them as having no where near the natural ability of a Valverde when not on the juice (I appreciate that assumes Valverde is riding clean these days)

craigus89

larkim wrote:

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

it's incorrect to attribute how contrite people were in their apologies as a means to judge them.

The rest of your post is sensible enough imho, but I don't follow this logic at all. Surely is entirely reasonable to look at two convicted dopers and judge one to be the "better" athlete because of their level of contrition? Even if they'd have been perfectly happy not to have been caught, once caught a change of heart is good to see / hear surely?

Then why does everyone, or at least most people still hate Millar?

hanshotfirst

YorkshireRaw wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

hypster wrote:

My biggest problem with Valverde is nothing to do with any previous drugs ban but his sudden performances over the last year or so at 37/38 years old. Nothing suspicious about that is there? And please don't troll out Chris Horner winning the Vuelta at 41 again because that sucks also.

What "sudden performances"? He's been predictably consistent for years now.

His predictable consistency has generally involved an inability to last for three weeks though.

He's got 8 grand tour podiums going back to 2003 which isn't bad for someone that can't last 3 weeks. He seems to suffer in the high mountains, the hardest stages are often backloaded in the 3 weeks so he may sometimes lose time in the third week but that's still the case now.

Indeed - and he's finished top 3 in both Giro and TDF since his ban.
In 2016 he was 3rd / 6th / 12th in the 3 GTs (getting 3rd in the Points class at the Vuelta).
2015 3rd in TDF, and points winner and 7th at the Vuelta.
2014 4th TDF and 3rd at the Vuelta (2nd in the points, 3rd in the Mountains).
etc etc

His all round achievements are ridiculous. He may well be juiced to the gills still, but can't knock his consistency. The only big race I can think of that he hasn't won (that suits him) is Lombardy.....

Definitely think he could have won more Grand Tours if he'd had a team working primarily for him. Obviously he won one but think he could have bagged more had he not ridden on a team being all like "no no, we have two leaders in this race" or "seriously guys, we have three leaders in this race, no clear favourite, we think that's the best way to win the team classification"

DeVlaeminck

Craigus89 wrote:

larkim wrote:

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

it's incorrect to attribute how contrite people were in their apologies as a means to judge them.

The rest of your post is sensible enough imho, but I don't follow this logic at all. Surely is entirely reasonable to look at two convicted dopers and judge one to be the "better" athlete because of their level of contrition? Even if they'd have been perfectly happy not to have been caught, once caught a change of heart is good to see / hear surely?

Then why does everyone, or at least most people still hate Millar?

Do people hate Millar? I can't think of any cyclist I hate, even accepting that when people use the word hate they probably just mean dislike is he even widely disliked ?

inseine

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

larkim wrote:

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

it's incorrect to attribute how contrite people were in their apologies as a means to judge them.

The rest of your post is sensible enough imho, but I don't follow this logic at all. Surely is entirely reasonable to look at two convicted dopers and judge one to be the "better" athlete because of their level of contrition? Even if they'd have been perfectly happy not to have been caught, once caught a change of heart is good to see / hear surely?

Then why does everyone, or at least most people still hate Millar?

Do people hate Millar? I can't think of any cyclist I hate, even accepting that when people use the word hate they probably just mean dislike is he even widely disliked ?

I think 'hate' is just a catchall word. I know that on the Velocast they really dislike Millar yet love Valverde. It is something to to with staying quiet is somehow better than an apology (or at least an explanation) that some people don't believe. I think they dislike thinking he's asking for forgiveness.
For what it's wife my wife 'loves' him because he sound quite educated (something are in the cycling world?). I think he's good as a pundit and accept him for what he is.

kingstongraham

inseine wrote:

I think 'hate' is just a catchall word. I know that on the Velocast they really dislike Millar yet love Valverde. It is something to to with staying quiet is somehow better than an apology (or at least an explanation) that some people don't believe. I think they dislike thinking he's asking for forgiveness.
For what it's wife my wife 'loves' him because he sound quite educated (something are in the cycling world?). I think he's good as a pundit and accept him for what he is.

I don't think Valverde's "I did nothing wrong" is better than Millar's "I took drugs except on the days when I was good". Millar is good at reading a race, but I don't like him still taking a job from a clean rider.

amrushton

Bespoke podcast has 30 mins on the Valverde dilemma. Quite interesting to hear a journalists view of him