Very true. In fact the more I think about it the more unlikely the win was. The team consisted of 4 workers and every member of the peloton knew that the plan was to control the race for a sprint. If there was a sprint Cav would almost certainly win. The best riders there weren't sprinters. If Cav had won they would have looked like idiots.Originally Posted by The devil's own
Pride comes before a fall.
Tour: 4 stage wins
Vuelta: 4 stage wins plus the overall title in 2006
Liège–Bastogne–Liège: 2 wins
Amstel Gold Race: 1 win.
Vino didn't have his dramatic crash in the 2011 Tour by sitting in the bunch all day and popping out for the last 2-300 metres sprint.
He's a rider with guts, elan and panache and I was cheering him on today. It was a great victory for cycle racing. Not media hype.
Last edited by Graham Breeze; 29-07-2012 at 12:08 AM.
Ever the patronising reply that the forum expects.
However regardless of whether you were privy the fact Greipel came in 50 seconds down on Vino and ahead of Cav would suggest your "perhaps" is not the case.
Guts , elan and too many red blood cells! A 38 year old doper winning is not good for cycling. He's a throwback.
By the way, I meant Cav's win was unlikely.
Now I like cycle racing generally, the tours etc are a great watch, but im no train spotter on the sport unlike a fair few on here. Really though I cant see how someone with a history of drug cheating winning the Gold is 'a great victory for cycle racing'....I suppose the chap vino. executed his race tactics brilliantly but the fact remains he is a tainted rider and therefore, to me anyway, a very unwelcome victory.
Another thing I would say about todays race, it seems like 98% of the riders were just out for a ride round surrey, to me it seemed poor to have so many riders/teams taking part in an olympic event and not even making any sort of attempt to do anything in the race.
So you say Cav sounded like a knob, yet you agree with what he was saying?
very strange
Nowt strange about it, I frequently think Cav sounds like a knob but agree with what his saying. Im not going to think about that too much.....
We agree.
It was a race in the most complicated sport there is. Vino did not have a "super team" supporting him and he won. He won the race. Simple.
His crime appears to be that he doesn't ride for GB.
Now had Millar won from a break would we have had all the "drug" history? Oh dear me no.
It would have been all about how quickly Millar, reformed sinner, could be granted Sainthood.
Millar wouldn't have been greeted with cheers by me Graham.
My approach to sport and who I cheer for is generally in this pecking order. My Family, my Club, my area / county, my country, people who I admire for their talent, commitment and sportsmanship.
I would make no apologies for supporting a GB athlete over other athletes.
I would applaud an athlete who displays exemplary tactics to take a victory, such as Vino yesterday, however in such a case as with Vino, or if it had been Millar or some other ex-doper, my appreciation would be somewhat diminished because of the checkered past.
I would have preferred that we left Millar out and put Steve Cummings or some other cyclist in.
For me, yes definitely. The lifetime ban should stand, even for Millar, whether he's a good cyclist or not.
I don't follow cycling closely, and know very little about it, but a gold medal hopeful not being in the lead group seems daft to me. If I was in contention, that's where I would make sure I placed myself.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote