# Sky: sounds familiar...



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Sky are under scrutiny for their dominant performances, their riders are saying things that sound very familiar.

Richie Porte's comments after winning Paris Nice:

"“How many teams are doing 25 minutes of threshold training at altitude? Do they look at our strength? We do our jobs. We’re professional,” he said. “Everyone used to laugh at us when we started to ride our trainers after the stages. Now 90 percent of the peloton is doing it. We’re trend-setters.”

Wasn't threshold training the cornerstone of Armstrong's dominance?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I just wonder what a winner could say that isn't suspicious.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

I'm waiting for one of them to say ... "What are we doing? We're on our bikes 6 hours a day!" 

The reality is they are "Dominant" at this time ... Given the history of doping in cycling, the continued use of PED's in cycling, many doctors talking about drugs that can't be detected, the possibility of genetic doping, etc. ... It's to be expected and they should be prepared to answer media questions about it.

The more they dodge the questions, get upset with them, talk about their incredible dedication and increased training and how they are doing things differently than other teams (though they really are doing the same things) ... the more people will start to doubt their performances and the more questions will be asked of them.

I know if you take their names out of their post race discussions and replace them with US Postal Team member names ... they would be almost indistinguishable.


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

davidka said:


> Sky are under scrutiny for their dominant performances, their riders are saying things that sound very familiar.
> 
> Richie Porte's comments after winning Paris Nice:
> 
> ...


Funny, I was thinking the same thing when Froome made a similar comment. It's horseshit that they are doing anything special training wise, people have been doing Altitude work for decades. Watching Uran reel Contador in on multiple occasions at T-A after riding on the front for many K's and eventually finishing right behind him barely breathing was the last straw for me. Prediction, Wiggins is tired of being part of the "program" and is slowly moving away, hence the Giro this year (Which Porte will eventually end up being the leader after Wiggins shows NO form) Wiggins retires next year.


----------



## B05 (Jul 31, 2011)

I want to think Uran is clean but they're very suspicious. That kid's got a very bright future.

I still think Froome was juiced to the gills last year...more than Wiggins. Still can't believe he did the Vuelta after winning TdF (ooowww owwww, don't get too sensitive now).


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

I want to believe Sky are clean, mostly because I'm British but also because I genuinely want to believe the whole peloton is clean (apart from Voeckler). And there's a part of me that thinks if they're dirty they're not making ANY attempt to hide it - I mean if I wanted to create a doped up cycling team I'd pick and choose events to focus on to allay suspicions. 

But then Porte smashes all competition in an ITT out of the park and I think - f**k 'em


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

roddjbrown said:


> But then Porte smashes all competition in an ITT out of the park and I think - f**k 'em


x2.
Just too blatant IMHO.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

upstateSC-rider said:


> x2.
> Just too blatant IMHO.


X3. In the past when entire teams dominate, it has been too good to be true. 

(Here's looking at you, East Germany).


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Careful now. Trashing Team Sky is drivel because we're still bitter about US Postal.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I think Sky as a whole team is better than Postal.

Sky at this point has 2 legit GC contenders, and 2-3 more waiting in the wings ready to bust out in the next 1 year, maybe 2 max. Postal didn't have this kind of depth.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> I think Sky as a whole team is better than Postal.
> 
> Sky at this point has 2 legit GC contenders, and 2-3 more waiting in the wings ready to bust out in the next 1 year, maybe 2 max. Postal didn't have this kind of depth.


hamilton
landis
azevedo
heras
leipheimer


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

den bakker said:


> hamilton
> landis
> azevedo
> heras
> leipheimer


Whatever, Postal came out strong for one race a year.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Talansky would have been much much close on GC if he had more experience. Porte capitalized on Talansky being green.

Now if only we could look at the cream of Sky at a tough one week race, with a tough parcours against better competition and see how they do.

If only...


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

foto said:


> Whatever, Postal came out strong for one race a year.


which is why heras won the vuelta, and one second and a fourth. 
whatever


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

den bakker said:


> which is why heras won the vuelta, and one second and a fourth.
> whatever


whatever


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

den bakker said:


> which is why heras won the vuelta, and one second and a fourth.
> whatever


Damn you and your facts!


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Bluenote said:


> Damn you and your facts!


What facts, that postal dominated the way sky is? No proven imo.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Bluenote said:


> Damn you and your facts!


If you like facts, how many races outside of the tour did USPostal win in the 8 or 9 years they were operating as a team?

6? 7? I hardly call that dominance. Cavendish got almost as many wins last year alone.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

foto said:


> Whatever, Postal came out strong for one race a year.


Den's roster of high end GC riders is a bit too big to simply "whatever". Sure, we were sold the story that US Postal simply bought the best team possible. Hell, that's why we all hate the NY Yankees. 

"Whatever" all ya want, Team Sky is unleashing more dominance than US Postal at the moment, more like mid 90's T-Mobile. History eventually showed us why.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

foto said:


> What facts, that postal dominated the way sky is? No proven imo.


No. Heras' finishes in the Vuelta.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Den's roster of high end GC riders is a bit too big to simply "whatever". Sure, we were sold the story that US Postal simply bought the best team possible. Hell, that's why we all hate the NY Yankees.
> 
> "Whatever" all ya want, Team Sky is unleashing more dominance than US Postal at the moment, more like mid 90's T-Mobile. History eventually showed us why.


What are you talking about? Are you trying to agree with me and argue with me at the same time?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

This thread has unleashed a rash of whatever.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Den's roster of high end GC riders is a bit too big to simply "whatever". Sure, we were sold the story that US Postal simply bought the best team possible. Hell, that's why we all hate the NY Yankees.
> 
> "Whatever" all ya want, Team Sky is unleashing more dominance than US Postal at the moment, more like mid 90's T-Mobile. History eventually showed us why.


I can't help myself...

Leipheimer a "high-end GC rider"? Lulz, he was a super-dom that never won anything interesting, and had the least inspiring racing style of all time.

And Azevedo? Who the hell is that?

I stand by my whatever.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

foto said:


> I can't help myself...
> 
> Leipheimer a "high-end GC rider"? Lulz, he was a super-dom that never won anything interesting, and had the least inspiring racing style of all time.
> 
> ...


You just quoted me twice. Lulz.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

spade2you said:


> You just quoted me twice. Lulz.


and?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

what-_evvvvar!!!!_


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Azevedo???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featu...0F4kTIzY&list=UUYjdc2yKfCWtXthLrmkV31w#t=346s

Eli Wallach says it best...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

foto said:


> If you like facts, how many races outside of the tour did USPostal win in the 8 or 9 years they were operating as a team?
> 
> 6? 7? I hardly call that dominance. Cavendish got almost as many wins last year alone.


That's the thing. Sky has the depth to dominate multiple races, at any given time.
Postal and Lance mainly raced the Tour.

So Sky has *depth* and *breadth*.

If I were to compare the 2 teams to naval ships. Postal would be a destroyer; very powerful, very surgical, armed to the teeth... but can only last about 1 solid battle. Sky is like an aircraft carrier; can be deployed anywhere, anytime, at any given notice. They are on standby 24/7 ready to wage a prolonged war. Postal was waging a battle, Sky is waging a war. Quite impressive.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Just so we're clear, Armstrong had plenty of hard allegations brought against him by this point in time (backdated TUE, etc). Other than being stronger than everyone else, there isn't any evidence of doping at Sky.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

foto said:


> If you like facts, how many races outside of the tour did USPostal win in the 8 or 9 years they were operating as a team?
> 
> 6? 7? I hardly call that dominance. Cavendish got almost as many wins last year alone.


Of course I like facts. What would I say 'oh, facts just get in the way of 

Part of why they didn't race much was to avoid drug tests. This was talked about in the USADA report. Lots of training in remote locations. Fewer races. Then Le Tour. 

Do you think they'd risk the Tour for Milan San Remo or something? 

And wasn't Landis a Postie? I'd call winning the Tour a result (yes, I know he was on another team at the time, but it shows his potential). He also had stage wins, respectable showing in the Dauphine, etc...

Hamilton also. He had stage wins, an Olympic Medal, respectable placings in GTs. 

Ekimov also won Olympic medals. 

Plus the aforementioned Heras. 

I'd call that pretty good results.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Wow, talk about missing the point...

Is it always just an echo chamber in here or do people actually read each others posts?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Bluenote said:


> Of course I like facts. What would I say 'oh, facts just get in the way of
> 
> Part of why they didn't race much was to avoid drug tests. This was talked about in the USADA report. Lots of training in remote locations. Fewer races. Then Le Tour.
> 
> ...


Um...USPostal was a WT team or whatever it was called back then. They raced the whole calendar. I recall one certain George Hincapie trying to win PR a few times, and probably would have if they brought a real team to support him.


----------



## Carverbiker (Mar 6, 2013)

Seems as though we have seen this before. Rider x or team x has rides, races or seasons in which they are super human, demonstrate complete dominance or do seemingly unbelievable things and then get busted for doping, come back and while good just don't have that "something special that made them great". Here in the States we believe innocent till proven guilty but we also have the saying fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Lets go back to the initial point:




aclinjury said:


> I think Sky as a whole team is better than Postal.
> 
> Sky at this point has 2 legit GC contenders, and 2-3 more waiting in the wings ready to bust out in the next 1 year, maybe 2 max. Postal didn't have this kind of depth.


And the counter argument: Landis, Hamilton, Heras, Leipheimer.

Armstrong, Landis and Heras won GTs. Hamilton showed respectably in them. 

So that's Sky 2 GT contenders, Postal 3 or 4.

Sky may have more future potential GT contenders, they may not. Lots of people never realize their potential. Injuries, politics, over optimistic scouting, distractions, lack of mental toughness, etc...

It's apples to oranges arguing Postals actual results (a harder measure) versus Sky's potential results (a broader measure).


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Marginal gains. Warm downs. Altitude training. Swimming coach. It's all legit. Sky could field 2 full TdF teams. Nothing to see here. Clean cycling. They might have a new "saddle sore" doctor to replace Leinders, but they are still clean. Zero tolerance.

I am just waiting for them to go full crazy and finish 1-2-3 at a grand tour! Hurrah for clean cycling. No doping since 2006!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

The Tedinator said:


> Marginal gains. Warm downs. Altitude training. Swimming coach. It's all legit. Sky could field 2 full TdF teams. Nothing to see here. Clean cycling. They might have a new "saddle sore" doctor to replace Leinders, but they are still clean. Zero tolerance.
> 
> I am just waiting for them to go full crazy and finish 1-2-3 at a grand tour! Hurrah for clean cycling. No doping since 2006!


You forgot high cadence trainining, I mean asymetrical chainrings. :idea:


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Sky defends itself.

Brailsford hits back at accusations and criticism of Team Sky | Cycling News


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

*no comment*



Brailsford said:


> "If you acted on the basis of that, it'd be totally unjust. So I'm not going to do the same to someone else. You've got to work with evidence and facts. That's the way the world works. I'd be out of a job for sure if I didn’t."
> 
> Brailsford accepts that he made a mistake by hiring Dr. Leinders, but refutes the idea that the Belgian doctor's presence in the team was somehow proof that doping goes on at Team Sky. Brailsford claimed that long success with the Great Britain team at the Olympics is a guarantee of his integrity.
> 
> ...


whatever





Some Random said:


> This thread has unleashed a rash of whatever.


whatever


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

And a counter in Sky. 

Vayer calls for SRM and blood data from Sky | Cycling News


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

kbiker3111 said:


> Other than being stronger than everyone else, there isn't any evidence of doping at Sky.


Yeah, but that is some pretty damning evidence in itself. "Other than being captured on video murdering this person, there isn't any evidence..." Uh huh.

Team Sky is like the professional body builder with muscles bulging everywhere to the point where it looks disgusting, who walks into your gym and tries to blend in... yeah, it's kind of obvious bud. I don't need to see some positive doping test result to crack this case.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Vayer: "Many other riders train very hard but why is it only Sky riders on the front playing with the others?"

Counterpoint: Contador attacks Rodriguez and Valverde Vuelta 2012 - YouTube


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Local Hero said:


> Vayer: "Many other riders train very hard but why is it only Sky riders on the front playing with the others?"
> 
> Counterpoint: Contador attacks Rodriguez and Valverde Vuelta 2012 - YouTube




Nothing to do with putting a team of TTers together specifically for dieseling up TdF style shallow pitch extended climbs.

Of course Sky is always unbeatable in stage races, including TA, the Giro, Vuelta, because no one in the Pro peloton is as good.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

The kicker for me was Vayer's description of Sky riders as *on the front playing with the others*, when their tdf riding style/tactics is more accurately described as mechanical, calculated, and often pursing attackers.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Cableguy said:


> Yeah, but that is some pretty damning evidence in itself. "Other than being captured on video murdering this person, there isn't any evidence..." Uh huh.. end in...


That's not an accurate metaphor at all, since one is being caught in the act and the other isn't. With postal (and others) there was actual evidence of their doping and plenty of people testing positive as soon as they left the team. With Sky, there is zero direct evidence of doping and, AFAIK, no one has tested positive since leaving. 

I understand that every extraordinary performance is suspect now, but lets not overstate the case. I realize Sky has only been around a couple years, but where are the Betsy Andreus and Emma O'reillys. Where are the backdated TUE's and dumped transfusion equipment? Sky is a big team and if there really is systemic doping you would find someone who would speak out.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Sounds familiar:



> London (AFP) — Team Sky principal Dave Brailsford has hit out over insinuations that his team’s stunning successes in recent years have been built on immoral foundations.
> 
> Sky’s Bradley Wiggins vehemently defended himself against doping allegations during his victory in last year’s Tour de France.
> 
> Brailsford, meanwhile, has admitted to having made mistakes, particularly concerning the recruitment of Belgian doctor Geert Leinders, who was working with Rabobank when two of their riders were suspended for drug use.


Sky boss Dave Brailsford insists his team rides clean


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Local Hero said:


> The kicker for me was Vayer's description of Sky riders as *on the front playing with the others*, when their tdf riding style/tactics is more accurately described as mechanical, calculated, and often pursing attackers.



Rumor is that Nibali was teasing Uran at TA on Sunday for looking down at his SRM.

Their tactics are really boring to watch. Henao was in the early break that day too, but got called back into the borg. I would have liked to see what some of these little columbians can do when let off the leash.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

kbiker3111 said:


> That's not an accurate metaphor at all, since one is being caught in the act and the other isn't. With postal (and others) there was actual evidence of their doping and plenty of people testing positive as soon as they left the team. With Sky, there is zero direct evidence of doping and, AFAIK, no one has tested positive since leaving.
> 
> I understand that every extraordinary performance is suspect now, but lets not overstate the case. I realize Sky has only been around a couple years, but where are the Betsy Andreus and Emma O'reillys. Where are the backdated TUE's and dumped transfusion equipment? Sky is a big team and if there really is systemic doping you would find someone who would speak out.


And to add, Sky's performances aren't that extraordinary. There aren't super long distance solo rides or huge haymaker attacks in the big ring like we used to see in the "old days" of a couple years ago.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Pat McQuaid says Sky is clean, because the foolproof Biological Passport says they're clean. Case closed. Move along. Nothing to see here.

I'm glad that's been cleared up. Hooray for clean sport (copyright 2007).


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

kbiker3111 said:


> That's not an accurate metaphor at all, since one is being caught in the act and the other isn't.


Was being silly, glad you noticed! 



kbiker3111 said:


> With postal (and others) there was actual evidence of their doping and plenty of people testing positive as soon as they left the team. With Sky, there is zero direct evidence of doping and, AFAIK, no one has tested positive since leaving.


All I'm saying is it's pretty obvious to *me* they are cheating, not that I can know with 100% certainly or that it can be *proved[/b/].... yet.



kbiker3111 said:



Sky is a big team and if there really is systemic doping you would find someone who would speak out.

Click to expand...

Postal kept it under wraps for quite some time. Maybe give Sky a few more years.*


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

I would agree that Sky is currently more dominant than USPS was in that they can contest two very stacked races at the same time, nearly winning both. 

USPS was far more than a 1 race per year team though. They achieved numerous 1-week race wins with Lance, Levi, Tyler, and Floyd. 

That discussion aside the point remains, they are very similar in many ways.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Alaska Mike said:


> Pat McQuaid says Sky is clean, because the foolproof Biological Passport says they're clean. Case closed. Move along. Nothing to see here.
> 
> I'm glad that's been cleared up. Hooray for clean sport (copyright 2007).


Someone brought this up in another thread. It's not splitting hairs to say that the problem isn't with the tests but the UCI.


----------



## thighmaster (Feb 2, 2006)

The giveaway is they are doing 20 min intervals at threshold after a 6 hr stage:aureola:


----------



## Kemmelberg (Dec 27, 2005)

For me it was not so much the climbing of Sky during Paris-Nice that bothered me, but the way that Russian (Ukranian?) guy was able to sit on the front for the last 20K of that monster stage that finished in Nice with a 50-60 rider peloton strung out behind him. Nobody gave him a break on the front and the pack appeared to be hanging on for dear life. He was riding so fast that there were almost no attacks on the run-in to Nice. I get that Sky can roll at the front on the climbs because the speeds are lower and the riders behind are getting less of the drafting effect. But on flatter terrain at the speeds those guys ride there's a huge slipstream effect and one rider should not be able to maintain a position on the front for very long without getting shredded by attacks from riders sitting on. Anyway, I felt like it spoiled the stage.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Kemmelberg said:


> For me it was not so much the climbing of Sky during Paris-Nice that bothered me, but the way that Russian (Ukranian?) guy was able to sit on the front for the last 20K of that monster stage that finished in Nice with a 50-60 rider peloton strung out behind him. Nobody gave him a break on the front and the pack appeared to be hanging on for dear life. He was riding so fast that there were almost no attacks on the run-in to Nice. I get that Sky can roll at the front on the climbs because the speeds are lower and the riders behind are getting less of the drafting effect. But on flatter terrain at the speeds those guys ride there's a huge slipstream effect and one rider should not be able to maintain a position on the front for very long without getting shredded by attacks from riders sitting on. Anyway, I felt like it spoiled the stage.


Good points.


Over the last month or so I've been watching TDF video coverage by an Australian TV network starting with the 1986 TDF and all the way up until the 2002 TDF. 

It sure looks to me like there were much more suffering going on in stages from the mid-'80's until the early '90's. Shoulders rocking side to side, head bobbing up and down, etc.

Then, it seems, by about 1993 or '94 there was much less suffering. Riders didn't appear like they were struggling compared to the '80's riders. 

And to watch Marco Pantani fly up Alpe d’Huez during stage 13 of the '97 TDF; Attack after attack while showing very little fatigue.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

LOL, some of that might have been because they climbed in a 42x21 or 42x23 back in the day


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

If you really want to see cycling as farce; watch this video. Comedy gold! All the heavy hitters, errrrrrrr, dopers from the 2000's are there:

Armstrong Vs Pantani 2000 Tour De France - YouTube

They are all there! Botero, Ullrich, Virenque, Marco and LA!


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

The Tedinator said:


> If you really want to see cycling as farce; watch this video. Comedy gold! All the heavy hitters, errrrrrrr, dopers from the 2000's are there:
> 
> Armstrong Vs Pantani 2000 Tour De France - YouTube
> 
> They are all there! Botero, Ullrich, Virenque, Marco and LA!


What a boring stage...I would so much rather watch a bunch of wheelsuckers who never attack.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

spade2you said:


> LOL, some of that might have been because they climbed in a 42x21 or 42x23 back in the day


So we're back to the high pedaling cadence argument?!


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> If you really want to see cycling as farce; watch this video. Comedy gold! All the heavy hitters, errrrrrrr, dopers from the 2000's are there:
> 
> Armstrong Vs Pantani 2000 Tour De France - YouTube
> 
> They are all there! Botero, Ullrich, Virenque, Marco and LA!


Yep; I watched that whole Tour last week. 


What's weird is that I believe Pharmstrong genuinely gifted that stage to him. To show support for the little ingrate's return to the peloton.

I know Pharmstrong has gifted a stage to Ullrich with a time bonus.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> So we're back to the high pedaling cadence argument?!


LOL, I suppose when you compare a 42x21 to a 39x25, it's hard to not be about cadence. 



cda 455 said:


> Yep; I watched that whole Tour last week.
> 
> 
> What's weird is that I believe Pharmstrong genuinely gifted that stage to him. To show support for the little ingrate's return to the peloton.
> ...


It's kinda funny how Pantani was irate about being gifted a stage, but cocaine is a hell of a drug.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

spade2you said:


> LOL, I suppose when you compare a 42x21 to a 39x25, it's hard to not be about cadence.
> 
> 
> 
> It's kinda funny how Pantani was irate about being gifted a stage, but cocaine is a hell of a drug.


Gifting a stage to a champion is a backhanded insult. Total dick move, Armstrong should have just won if his intention was to be gracious.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

foto said:


> Gifting a stage to a champion is a backhanded insult. Total dick move, Armstrong should have just won if his intention was to be gracious.


Marco made sure to get revenge on Armstrong winning a stage as well as attacking in another stage and being the closest anyone had ever been to cracking LA.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Agreed, Pantani went nuts on Armstrong with suicide attacks after that.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

foto said:


> What a boring stage...I would so much rather watch a bunch of wheelsuckers who never attack.


Bet you were just _thrilled_ with the TdF last year!


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

The Tedinator said:


> Bet you were just _thrilled_ with the TdF last year!


It sucked. A lot of that was due to a boring parcours.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> Bet you were just _thrilled_ with the TdF last year!




Ooo; Nice retort :lol: !


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

foto said:


> Gifting a stage to a champion is a backhanded insult. Total dick move, Armstrong should have just won if his intention was to be gracious.


Interesting perspective.


As I remember it, Mr. Ingrate fell into despair after he won the '98 TDF because of all the doping allegations. Apparently serious depression issues.


Why do you think Ullrich didn't have a problem with it since he was also a former TDF champion when he put his hand back, as he crossed the finish line, to thank/shake Pharmstrong's hand?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

cda 455 said:


> Interesting perspective.
> 
> 
> As I remember it, Mr. Ingrate fell into despair after he won the '98 TDF because of all the doping allegations. Apparently serious depression issues.
> ...


Because Jan had low self-esteem.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Maybe Pantani thought that he won fair and square. It was hard for the riders to see the line and Pantani accelerated for it. (And let's be honest, if Armstrong could have ridden Pantani off his wheel 200m earlier he would have done it.) 

So when Armstrong said that he let Pantani win it soiled the victory. I'd be pissed if someone told the public, "He only won because I let him win." It might get in my head. Looking back, maybe that was Armstrong's goal.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

cda 455 said:


> Ooo; Nice retort :lol: !


Yeah, how did he ever think that one up...


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Local Hero said:


> Maybe Pantani really thought that he did win, fair and square. It was hard for the riders to see the line and Pantani accelerated for it. (And let's be honest, if Armstrong could have ridden Pantani off his wheel 200m earlier he would have done it.)
> 
> So when Armstrong said that he let Pantani win it soiled the victory. I'd be pissed if someone told the public, "He only won because I let him win." It might get in my head. Looking back, maybe that was Armstrong's goal.


Yeah, he was obviously talking smack about his rivals. I think it was awesome. Pantani was not Tiralongo...


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

This is how you gift a stage:



> Though he insisted he did not gift the stage to his former teammate, Contador could have easily kept on going to win what would have been his third stage of this Giro.
> 
> “Tiralongo didn’t receive any gift. Paolo won the stage with his own strength and force,” Contador said. “He attacked three times from far away and even though I caught his wheel, he was able to keep riding to win the stage. It’s enough that I defend the pink jersey than to start giving gifts.”


That's a gracious compliment, not an insult disguised as a compliment.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

foto said:


> Yeah, he was obviously talking smack about his rivals. I think it was awesome. Pantani was not Tiralongo...


Wait, I thought we hated Contador this week.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> Agreed, Pantani went nuts on Armstrong with suicide attacks after that.


That was a fun tour to watch. Most of the LA years were somewhat entertaining. I'll admit Fignon vs. LeMond and Froome vs. Cobo were my favs.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Wait, I thought we hated Contador this week.


Who do you guys not hate?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

foto said:


> Who do you guys not hate?


I don't hate any professional cyclists. I've never viewed professional cycling as a popularity contest. Nice, mean, whiny, shady, etc. Don't care. Usually the guys who _hate_ Clenbutador comment on how jerseys are looking this year and fancy a man date with Jens.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Pantani was more insecure than Ulrich. Pantani really wanted to be taken seriously - being call 'the pirate' and not 'Dumbo', seeming to need the spotlight. 

Funny thing about Ulrich, I've never been sure that he loved cycling. I mean, it was his job and he was very good, very talented - but he always seemed just a touch detached, a touch unfocused. 

I can see them reacting very differently to a gift stage.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

foto said:


> Who do you guys not hate?


Lanterne rouge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

spade2you said:


> LOL, some of that might have been because they climbed in a 42x21 or 42x23 back in the day


You're actually probably right. I remember changing up to the new and fabulous 53X39 in the mid to late 80's. It was 52X42 before that.

Ouch, just outed myself as an old guy....:cryin:


----------

