2011-08-20 - Vuelta a Espana: dates / route

Lucy's point is valid, but you could make many of the same claims about Froome.

True about Froome, but I'd give him a little bit more leeway, not because he's 'British' (i.e. African) or because of Team Sky, but more to do with his age and the teams he has ridden on.
He didn't get to the big races with Konica, and when he did he was riding for Barloworld in 08 who in the Tour went to pieces after two riders were caught on EPO and others retired injured. Only four Barloworld riders even finished, one of whom was Froome at a creditable 84th.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, for now...

Lucy's point is valid, but you could make many of the same claims about Froome.

I'd rather Froome re wire my house than Cobo...

I found Cobo's ride fairly depressing. Do any of the dopers really think that anyone still believes in a rider's integrity if they put in a ride like Armstrong or Pantani? It's all so obvious--the metronomic rhythm, the apparent lack of exhaustion at the end, the massive difference to other riders, the total lack of any feeling that the winner was racing anyone up the climb, being in a world of his own--the Angliru stage could have been such a good stage, and it's a shame that there had to be someone like that again. Just like Contador in 2008:

Contador conquista el Angliru - YouTube

Actually, one of the tell-tale signs to me was the lack of celebration from Cobo at the end. I don't think that was because of exhaustion, but because he must have felt that it wasn't a victory to celebrate much. Pure speculation on my part, of course.

I tend to agree, Oliver. There's a vague 'job done' feel to his celebration, as if it was nailed on and wasn't a vast personal achievement.
Of course he may have just felt knackered, but I just think it was too good to be true.

Come on folks, drugs? really.

What is the point in watching a sport if you pull apart all the people who are doing well. If Wiggins wins, is that good because he is clean? Do we only seem to think that others are not clean? Is there a Spanish blog somewhere saying the same about Wiggins?

None of us know for sure what is going on, and all this talk of drugs does not help the sport. I for one will watch to the end of the Vuelta and if Cobo wins because of an amazing climb, then so be it. If he is then done, then so be it. But I am not going to judge the sport based on no facts. The whole of the 90s and 00s were killed for me because of doping, Riis, Pantani, Armstrong and Flandis (amongst others).

To say Cobo looked like he was on drugs because he didn't celebrate is unfair and not helpful.

Surely the main lesson learnt from the 90s and 00s is that a GT winner is likely to have doped?

Things may be changing for the better, but questioning exceptional performances is a logical position.

So is that it then, all winners of grand tours, are dopers - they must need help doping, so their soigneurs are assisting them - then they are not going to just be sorting out the tour winners, so the team members as well?

Its not logic to suggest that just because one rider won the GC on drugs that were rife and for the most part undetectable, that every winner from now on is on drugs.

The 90s and 00s were awful, the UCI had backed themselves into a corner by their own part in the omerta, the cover up. Armstrong should have tested positive in 96, not for drugs but because his testicular cancer would have showed up massive levels of testosterone (Alan Stubbs the footballer failed a test for the same reasons). Pantani was on Cocaine through large parts of his professional career - he tested positive once and was allowed back in.

Things have changed, now the world and the media have woken up - sponsors have. In addition, more is known about physiology and diets. I am sure it is not 100% clean but it's a different peloton these days. That's why I want to believe the riders are clean, and if not, then they will get caught. If I think everyone who is doing well is on drugs, well that's just depressing. It almost sounds like people want them to be on drugs, so they can moan about cyclists being on drugs like the old days. That ain't right. Give them a chance or cycling will never move on.

Doping >>>>>>>>>>

Come on folks, drugs? really.

What is the point in watching a sport if you pull apart all the people who are doing well. If Wiggins wins, is that good because he is clean? Do we only seem to think that others are not clean? Is there a Spanish blog somewhere saying the same about Wiggins?

None of us know for sure what is going on, and all this talk of drugs does not help the sport. I for one will watch to the end of the Vuelta and if Cobo wins because of an amazing climb, then so be it. If he is then done, then so be it. But I am not going to judge the sport based on no facts. The whole of the 90s and 00s were killed for me because of doping, Riis, Pantani, Armstrong and Flandis (amongst others).

To say Cobo looked like he was on drugs because he didn't celebrate is unfair and not helpful.

No one is pulling apart "all the people who do well", just those who have the same whiff about them as previous winners who turned out to be doping. Cobo does, Wiggins does not.
"All this talk of drugs does the sport no good". No, not wanting to talk about drugs in cycling does the sport no good. We are well past the point where keeping quiet and hoping it all doesn't blow up is a sensible approach. We are not judging the sport "based on no facts". Luci laid out several facts for you; they are the dots and knowing anything about the past means it is easy to join them up. It may not be proof enough for you but they are facts.
"if Cobo wins because of an amazing climb, then so be it. If he is then done, then so be it". But the sponsors and potential sponsors won't be so blase about it. Just as a credible TdF winner helps cycling crawl out of the gutter another fucking cheating Spanish fuckwit kicks it back down. If drugs affected your enjoyment of cycling so badly in the 90s and 00s then why is it not spoiling your enjoyment of the Vuelta now?
How did we 'know' that Pantani, Armstrong, Ricco, Mayo, DiLuca, Schumacher etc etc were doped? Not because they failed tests, we knew it long before that.

@tinoflyer - hand on heart, name me the last winner of a GT you're absolutely convinced is riding clean.

I think the sport is changing but I'm not yet convinced it's anywhere near as clean as you think.

I don't think Evans blood dopes.

+1

but in fairness thats it...

and it was the most boring tour i can remember.

What? It was the best Tour since 89.

Really? Did you not watch the race for the past 20 years?

yes there was an attack...

that guy didn't win though...

I'm not convinced that Evans is as clean as he's made out to be, as with Cobo it's very, very easy to join the dots.

That may be inevitable for any cyclist active in the past 10 years, but some of the teams he's ridden for were as dirty as they come.

Did you read the article I was on about where they say there may be undetectable EPO and Testosterone coming out of China?

link?

Wiganwill, some good points there and I completely agree with you that not talking about drugs led to the position in the 90s and so on. But I am not saying that we should not talk about them - they should never be forgotten - I am just suggesting that perhaps we should not be so quick to believe that everyone is on drugs.

I am sure it is not clean, and history has taught us that doping controls (largely because the UCI were so reticent) were always behind the testing. But for the most part I would like to believe that riders were clean when winning events.

Drugs didn't ruin my enjoyment of cycling in the 90s, Pantani's climbing in 98 was something to behold - hindsight tells me why - Armstrong brought many new fans into the sport, but hindsight tells they have been brought on the back of a fraud. I enjoyed cycling at the time, I was fucking livid when I found out why. I am not going to maintain naivety but I am not going to tar everyone with the same brush. I want to believe in the blood DNA passport thing and to hope that Cycling and the testers are in control. I am still massively concerned that known dopers are still in the sport - how Riis can be a director is beyond me, a lot of the dodgy soigneurs are still active too. We still need much tougher punishments.

However, I want to believe whoever wins this vuelta is clean, as I want to believe that Evans and the Schlecks fought out an exciting tour (it was a good one). I want to think Evans had better tactics, and I want to believe that the Schlecks just messed up and are just weak. I don't want to think Evans' soigneur is better than the Schlecks.

I don't know how old you are but if you thought Pantani was clean then that's pretty trusting of you.
Either way this has been a pretty crappy Vuelta hasn't it? It's slipping further and further behind the other two grand tours.

Wiganwill, I guess I was a bit trusting as a 20year old new to cycling and without access to the same kind of media attention these days. As I said before the UCI needed to hide matters after Voets Festina exploits. I firmly believe that the UCI actively hid Armstrong's doping to save cycling. Sponsors would have disappeared. The Tour may well have ended. As a consequence, you had to look much harder to find info on riders and drugs - most were still relatively naive too.

As for this Vuelta, it has only got lively in the few stages - but that is more to do with the British riders. Sky entering a 'B' Team, the Schlecks went across to some Pro Event in America, and the loss of interest from HTC has left it well and truly lower than the other two tours.

A Grand Tour? Not so sure anymore - there must surely be a more logical calendar for the Grand Tours.

Surprisingly though, I am looking forward to the Tour of Britain.

The inaugural USA Pro Tour aka the Tour of Colorado certainly seemed to draw a lot of talent. Next year will be interesting.

^ Money talks

I watched a bit of that race. Hardly flowing through the mountain tracks of the Alps or back roads of a Spanish village.

Fucking massive freeways!

I suspect there was a bit of money to attract the big names.

It looked dull though.