Giro 16 - Stage 20 ***Spoilers***

rick_chasey

deejay wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

They don't care in Italy either Ugo.

The Italian Federation cares and I would believe they have penalised more riders that than any other.

Fans don't.

ugo.santalucia

Rick Chasey wrote:

deejay wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

They don't care in Italy either Ugo.

The Italian Federation cares and I would believe they have penalised more riders that than any other.

Fans don't.

it's changed since the days of Pantani... there's been very little sympathy for Ricco' and even Di Luca lost most of his fans when he was found to be a big doper. Less black or white cases still split opinions though

gweeds

Yet Pantani is still hero-worshipped.....I've never really got that one.

rick_chasey

Gweeds wrote:

Yet Pantani is still hero-worshipped.....I've never really got that one.

I can.

Was his escapades that got me into cycling.

gweeds

Yeah, I can see why that'd be. A little late for me - it was Lemond/Fignon/Hinault etc for me....

ugo.santalucia

Pantani in Italy is considered above doping... basically the story goes that as a young lad he was already dropping PROs up the climbs... he is considered such a talent that he didn't need to dope, hence his doping is considered a mistake, something he could and should have done without, someone else's fault, who convinced him he needed that. Different story for the others, who needed EPO to do what they did.

It's not completely wrong, look at how Armstrong went from being an average climber to a world beater and others in his days did the same

dabber

Pantani on Oropa is just pure magic.

gweeds

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pantani in Italy is considered above doping... basically the story goes that as a young lad he was already dropping PROs up the climbs... he is considered such a talent that he didn't need to dope, hence his doping is considered a mistake, something he could and should have done without, someone else's fault, who convinced him he needed that. Different story for the others, who needed EPO to do what they did.

It's not completely wrong, look at how Armstrong went from being an average climber to a world beater and others in his days did the same

That's essentially the point I was making, and more than a little revisionist.

The idea that Pantani, and only Pantani, was gifted enough to not need to dope is utter bollocks.

ugo.santalucia

Gweeds wrote:

The idea that Pantani, and only Pantani, was gifted enough to not need to dope is utter ****.

There are a number of people that think the same of Indurain... his lung capacity alone was exceptional and that is not a number you can tweak with doping... others think the same of Greg Lemond... going back Merckx of course and a bunch of others (Hinault, Anquetil, Coppi... ).
When Pantani came out, the best climber was Chiappucci... it became immediately clear that there was an abyss between the two, even putting them head to head at their respective best

iainf72

It's not like Pantani started doping when he turned pro. It's very likely he was tooled up as a teenager.

gweeds

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Gweeds wrote:

The idea that Pantani, and only Pantani, was gifted enough to not need to dope is utter ****.

There are a number of people that think the same of Indurain... his lung capacity alone was exceptional and that is not a number you can tweak with doping... others think the same of Greg Lemond... going back Merckx of course and a bunch of others (Hinault, Anquetil, Coppi... ).
When Pantani came out, the best climber was Chiappucci... it became immediately clear that there was an abyss between the two, even putting them head to head at their respective best

Look - no-one is arguing that he wasn't a superb climber. What I struggle with is the free pass that he's given for the reasons you said. That he was somehow, magically, the only one good enough that he never needed to dope. It's just crap.

Of course not everyone responds the same way to a given drug, of course there are elements of the richer teams having access to the 'best' drugs/doctors.

But those don't, for me, at least, allow for the almost total worship and ignorance of what actually happened.

rick_chasey

seanorawe wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Italian press asking whether Nibali is greater than Pantani?

I-think-not

I'd say he is. As "exciting", certainly not.

But his palmares dwarf Pantani.

Nibali has never beaten an A lister though. Put him up against Contador, Froome or Quintana and he's nowhere. He's a bit like a boxer who keeps fighting bums.

The David Haye of cycling

On this, the more I think about it the more I think it's bit outrageous.

Surviving a GT and not retiring is a key key key skill.

Just because the others fall away doesn't take away from the victory. He may not have the legs over Contador or Froome, but he has an uncanny ability to be there, even when they're not. Only time he hasn't finished a GT was when he was thrown off.

That has to count for something.

gweeds

That was always what struck me about Armstrong. His ability to stay upright was remarkable.

The_Boy

Gweeds wrote:

That was always what struck me about Armstrong. His ability to stay upright was remarkable.

And even when he did fall off Ulrich was *still* scared of attacking him...

onyourright

Not only not fall off, but not get sick, not give up mentally, not sulk when he doesn’t get his way, etc. Make no mistake, Nibali is a very unusual man. Just imagine what it’s like to work for that Astana crowd day in, day out. The things Vino has said publicly about Nibali are outrageous. What has he said in private?

In some ways, Armstrong was similar. Immense self-confidence and drive to overcome difficulties.

pinno

OnYourRight wrote:

Not...private?

In some ways, Armstrong was similar. Immense self-confidence and exceedingly high doses and a wide variety of PED's to overcome any difficulty.

FTFY.

kingtubby

Overall good racing, Vincent must have eat some good meat the night before

Dorset_Boy

Recognizing the weakness of the competition, Nibali was struggling to hang on on the previous stages and showed nothing to suggest such a transformation. Wasn't he even getting dropped on one of the early climbs on S19?

It's that sudden transformation that gives rise to concern - there had been no steady improvement in the previous 18 stages to suggest he was riding into form.

However had Kreuswijk not crashed and Chaves not fallen ill at the wrong time, would we be having these doubts?

Pross

Yeah, I don't like Nibali but don't see anything particularly worrying here. Kruiswijk was still with him up until he crashed and without that crash would very likely have maintained most, if not all, of the lead he had up to that point. Coming into the race not many people would have expected Kruiwijk or Chaves to beat Nibali.

We had the same when Nibali won the Tour by a big margin but look at those names in top 10 and how many would you have expected to see there?

kleinstroker

As has been mentioned twice in this thread and others, Nibali was on 175mm cranks all year until papa Nibali told his son to go back to his old 172.5mm cranks which he did, and then smashed it up the colle d'agnello. Nothing more suspicious than that

gweeds

And they say size isn't important.

r0bh

With your finger and thumb demonstrate to yourself how big 2.5mm is. Then wonder to yourself whether a crank length change of 2.5mm will make a jot of difference. Stories abound of people accidentally using a 172.5mm crank on one side and a 175mm on the other and not noticing for months.

Mad_Malx

^I'm not sure that Kleinstroker was entirely serious.

ddraver

I think he was...you must be a marketing man's dream KS!

kleinstroker

I'm pretty sure that 2.5mm makes a difference when your pushing up a mountain. On flats maybe not at all.

specialgueststar

kleinstroker wrote:

I'm pretty sure that 2.5mm makes a difference when your pushing up a mountain. On flats maybe not at all.

so why go up for tt's? Indurain used to use 180 mm (plus) in tt's but back down to 175 on stages??

kleinstroker

SpecialGuestStar wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

I'm pretty sure that 2.5mm makes a difference when your pushing up a mountain. On flats maybe not at all.

so why go up for tt's? Indurain used to use 180 mm (plus) in tt's but back down to 175 on stages??

I think we're agreeing aren't we?

deejay

Regarding the Nibali transformation in the last couple of stages.
When earlier he was the favourite and he felt obliged to attack much too early with only the full support of Scarponi and then to find his form was not good enough.
The tactic it seemed to me did change with the team giving him an armchair ride to save energy until a few Km's to go.
This was the Armstrong team method of keeping him fully protected until he could use his PED's near the end of a boring mountain stage.
What Nibali went through was sheer pain in those last KM's and needed Guts to continue knowing his lack of "Best Form".
His saviour was Tanel Kangert who paced him away from Valverde but later Giovanni Visconti did the same to help Valverde get to within 13 secs at the finish line.
No I didn't suspect any sign of Nibali with PED's.

deejay

Gweeds wrote:

Yeah, I can see why that'd be. A little late for me - it was Lemond/Fignon/Hinault etc for me....

And of course I was in the Parc des Princes to hear the crowd chant Anquetil into the stadium finish. :roll:

Vino'sGhost

watching the stage again last night, i noticed several things

1 Chavez was on a bad bad day and worked really hard and did extremely well to maintain his position.
2 Nibali pushed ahead but was slowing rapidly by the end as evidenced by changes in position and ......
3 Valverdi and uran almost closing the gap.

so it could be that a world class GC rider attacked a less experienced young GC contender who was struggling. And won.

if you really want to see a drugfest you need only wait to see the TDF contenders where the whole race is faster.