Zabel admits doping

[wolfix]

I think this is a great reference point. It uses a point system that is heavy on the GT's. The author of this site considers the GT's more important then one day races. Everyone here has to agree with that because we are in the GT section of the Forum, not the one day section of the forum. Let's face it, Boonen/Zabel are great one day riders. But they are basically a one show pony. They could never contest a GT, but LA/JU/Hinault/Lemond could contest one day races . They have and won them. So a one day rider is just that ...a one day rider. But a GT rider is a premium rider.

Here is the way the point system works out......

As we see this, we see LA ranked higher then Lemond and Indurain. Much higher then Kelly. The interesting thing about this ranking list is that emotions and favored riders do not figure in the rankings. They look at results only.
http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/riders/rankings/ranking_combined_overall.txt
Arguments against this ranking?
**** Then we will get back to Zabel and his confession. Besides Zabel barely doped.

 

[fscyclist]

I think this is a great reference point. It uses a point system that is heavy on the GT's. The author of this site considers the GT's more important then one day races. Everyone here has to agree with that because we are in the GT section of the Forum, not the one day section of the forum. Let's face it, Boonen/Zabel are great one day riders. But they are basically a one show pony. They could never contest a GT, but LA/JU/Hinault/Lemond could contest one day races . They have and won them. So a one day rider is just that ...a one day rider. But a GT rider is a premium rider.

Here is the way the point system works out......

As we see this, we see LA ranked higher then Lemond and Indurain. Much higher then Kelly. The interesting thing about this ranking list is that emotions and favored riders do not figure in the rankings. They look at results only.
http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/riders/rankings/ranking_combined_overall.txt
Arguments against this ranking?
**** Then we will get back to Zabel and his confession. Besides Zabel barely doped.

The fact that Kelly is ranked 16th shows something is wrong with that system. He not only won one day races, he won the green jersey 5 times while also finishing in the top ten overall. Name another recent green jersey winner who even came close to that. He also won a GT (Vuelta).

Sure, LA contested a few (very few) of the monuments but never won. That means a lot. No one cares about second place in cycling. The GTs mark who has the best overall fitness, but not necessarily the best racer. To win a monument requires not only fitness but strategy, explosiveness, good bike handling, etc. and you only have one shot. I give a lot of credit to the guy that can do that.

 

[Bro Deal]

The author of this site considers the GT's more important then one day races. Everyone here has to agree with that because we are in the GT section of the Forum, not the one day section of the forum. Let's face it, Boonen/Zabel are great one day riders. But they are basically a one show pony. They could never contest a GT, but LA/JU/Hinault/Lemond could contest one day races . They have and won them. So a one day rider is just that ...a one day rider. But a GT rider is a premium rider.

Oh, really. If it's so easy for a "premium" rider like Armstrong to win a one day race then where are his wins in the classics? LBL should have been a piece of cake. And Flanders and Roubaix, if a bum like Boonen can win them then they should have been nice training rides for Armstrong. Heck, Armstrong must have retired with fifteen or twenty classics wins, right? Oh, I just remembered, the actual figure is zero.

 

[wolfix]

.

No one cares about second place in cycling.

And does anyone care about green jerseys?

I give a lot of credit to the guy that can do that

Anyone that rides in the peloton is a good rider and deserves credit due.

To win a monument requires not only fitness but strategy, explosiveness, good bike handling, etc. and you only have one shot.

And winning a TDF does not require that? You need to think about this. A GT winner must be able to do that and do very well and do well in TT's and climbing. The difference is that a GT winner does it day after day, instead of just one day.

Let's apply LA to your formula......

*fitness...... We don't even have to think about that.

*strategy....... Let's think that Discovery/LA must be able to handle this very well. Strategy was one of the main strenghts of Discovery.

*Explosiveness...... We have seen LA match every other riders explosiveness except for maybe M Pantani on one particular day. We have seen his explosiveness in the climbs. We saw it at an early age when he exploded on Indurain at the Worlds. He maybe not be a world class sprinter, but only a handful are.

Good bike handling????? We have witnessed LA gone off the road and across a field when Beloki[?] went down on that tar patch. Does it really get any better then that? He has positioned himself very well when isolated in the pack. That takes bike handling skills.

True......In a GT you do not have just one shot. But what you do have is many riders having multiple shots "at you" over a 3 week period.

If you give a lot of credit to a one day rider that can do what you say, then you must worship at the feet of a GT winner. Anything a one day rider can do, A GT rider can do it and do it over and over again.

 

[wolfix]

Oh, really. If it's so easy for a "premium" rider like Armstrong to win a one day race then where are his wins in the classics? LBL should have been a piece of cake. And Flanders and Roubaix, if a bum like Boonen can win them then they should have been nice training rides for Armstrong. Heck, Armstrong must have retired with fifteen or twenty classics wins, right? Oh, I just remembered, the actual figure is zero.

If Armstrong would have targeted Classics, he would have won or contested a few. He did win a World's, and that is as premium as it gets for a one day. And a TDF stage win is as tough as any Classic. Some riders consider it more then a Classic. And LA has some stage wins, so he had the potential.
Cycling is divided between types of riders...... Riders specialize today. I think you know that. If there were no GT's and all we had was one day races, we would see LA/JU/ and Indurain with wins. But if all races were GT's we would never see Boonen/Cipo/ nor Zabel with a win. Nor would they ever even contest a win.

No one said Boonen was a bum. Boonen/Zabel are my favorite two riders. But they are not complete riders. It takes a complete rider to win a GT.

Boonen/Zabel could not climb with any of the past 10 winners of the TDF nor could they TT in the same catagory as the last 10 winners. But the last 10 winners of the TDF could ride with Zabel or Boonen on any given day if they so chose.
A TDF is worth more then 10 Classic wins. If a rider has the chance to win a TDF, why would he mess up his training to peak for a Classic?
When cycling history is talked about, is it the names of LA/Indurain/ or Hinault they speak of?

How often do we speak of Van Looy,Museeuw, De Vlaeminck, and Raas?
These are the best Classic riders in the past 30 years.

Not Kelly, not Zabel, nor Bettini.

Obviously, Eddy is the best.

The numbers show this to be correct.

So the Classics are in the second tier of races. Not to downplay them, as I find the Tof Flanders and P-R more exciting then the GT's.
But to say a racer isn't any good because he only wins TDF's and not Classics is just flaming a thread.

 

[limerickman]

EM is in a class by himself, and of those who came afterwards, Hinault was the best followed by Kelly. Then you can start talking about other riders. Lemond had the potential to become better than Hinault and was more talented than Kelly, but the hunting accident ruined his carreer.

Curious to know why you consider Zabel in that league of riders.

The reason I include Zabel is that in over all race win totals - he has 200 wins under his belt.
Some way behind Eddie Merckx total of 454, but he has inched ahead of Sean Kelly who had 197 and was fourth on the overall list of race winners.

 

[limerickman]

I think this is a great reference point. It uses a point system that is heavy on the GT's. The author of this site considers the GT's more important then one day races. Everyone here has to agree with that because we are in the GT section of the Forum, not the one day section of the forum. Let's face it, Boonen/Zabel are great one day riders. But they are basically a one show pony. They could never contest a GT, but LA/JU/Hinault/Lemond could contest one day races . They have and won them. So a one day rider is just that ...a one day rider. But a GT rider is a premium rider.

Here is the way the point system works out......

As we see this, we see LA ranked higher then Lemond and Indurain. Much higher then Kelly. The interesting thing about this ranking list is that emotions and favored riders do not figure in the rankings. They look at results only.
http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/riders/rankings/ranking_combined_overall.txt
Arguments against this ranking?
**** Then we will get back to Zabel and his confession. Besides Zabel barely doped.

I've seen that listing and it gives a higher weighting to GT's wins that one day race wins.
Objectively, I have no problem with that sort of weighting - OK I might argue that the weighting may be slightly too favourable to GT race wins, over one day wins, but I'm not going to quibble.

In reference to where cyclists are in the all time lists, I wasr referring to the
the number of wins each rider has in their career, GT and one day race /stage wins.
The top five list is Merckx, Hinault, Anquetil, Zabel, Kelly.
Merckx wins are greater than the any cumulative combination of results of the other participants on the list ie.Hinault/Anquetils combined result is still less than Merckx.

Merckx is way, way ahead of anyone who ever rode a bike.

 

[wolfix]

But when one studies cycling, it is easy to see why a rider could amass far more wins in the past then today.

First of all, the competition is far greater today then it was then.

Today we have Americans, Australians, and riders from the Soviet Union/EGermany ["behind the wall"] Kelly in his prime never would have had to face Zabel , nor JU. They would never have been heard from in the peloton. [Possibly the Olympics] You have Americans who have made the TDF their Sunday stroll in the park the last 20 years. Kelley's wins would be cut way down with the Aussie's sprinters picking his pocket on a regular basis.
The sport has diversified today into specialized types of riders. I have no doubt Eddy would still be king, but he would have never pulled off the victories he did in a single season today.

An argument comparing riders of a different generation is almost impossible with cycling. The make-up of teams have changed. Each race has a greater importance to certain riders and they revolve their season around that ride with permission of the DS'Owner. That was not allowed back in the day. I'm personally a fan of Zabels because he does ride all year. I miss that in cycling.
Eddy would have never allowed any team member to dream of a victory unless he gifted it to them. And all strong team leaders did th esame.

Peter Post was critisized for having several riders on one team who was capable of winning on any given day. His team won a prolouge once and the TDF decided that they didn't want it to count towards the overall GC, after the fact. The Ti-Raleigh team was one of the first to have several world champions ride on the same team. Their team was more modern then the other teams. The Raleigh people was upset with Post because he did not pick a GB rider to lead the team. But Post understood that GB simply did not have a team leader in the peloton. And they haven't since. GB has not had anyone to glorify since Tommy Simpson died on the mountain with a pocket full of dope. And that was a long, long time ago. I think Peter Post ushered in the new era of cycling.

Teams today target certain races. Discovery is a good example, as Milrem is.
But Lim, when you look at your list, all of them have been convicted or admitted doping except Hinault, who was suspended for refusing a doping control and JA who said "A rider does not race on mineral water alone." That shows exactly the important role dope has played in the cycling history.

Cycling was not contested the same throughout Europe. For many years not many Italians would race in France and in reverse. The main races were contested by different nationalities, but not to the degree it is today.


And Bartali, Coppi, and Anquetil was far greater riders then Indurain, Armstrong, and JU were. Whe history is examined, you see that Anquetil may have been the best TDF rider. He dominated.....

And Bartali may be the rider that would have challenged Eddy for greatness if it wasn't for WW2. But we will never know.

 

[limerickman]

But when one studies cycling, it is easy to see why a rider could amass far more wins in the past then today.

First of all, the competition is far greater today then it was then.

Today we have Americans, Australians, and riders from the Soviet Union/EGermany ["behind the wall"] Kelly in his prime never would have had to face Zabel , nor JU. They would never have been heard from in the peloton. [Possibly the Olympics] You have Americans who have made the TDF their Sunday stroll in the park the last 20 years. Kelley's wins would be cut way down with the Aussie's sprinters picking his pocket on a regular basis.
The sport has diversified today into specialized types of riders. I have no doubt Eddy would still be king, but he would have never pulled off the victories he did in a single season today.

An argument comparing riders of a different generation is almost impossible with cycling. The make-up of teams have changed. Each race has a greater importance to certain riders and they revolve their season around that ride with permission of the DS'Owner. That was not allowed back in the day. I'm personally a fan of Zabels because he does ride all year. I miss that in cycling.
Eddy would have never allowed any team member to dream of a victory unless he gifted it to them. And all strong team leaders did th esame.

Peter Post was critisized for having several riders on one team who was capable of winning on any given day. His team won a prolouge once and the TDF decided that they didn't want it to count towards the overall GC, after the fact. The Ti-Raleigh team was one of the first to have several world champions ride on the same team. Their team was more modern then the other teams. The Raleigh people was upset with Post because he did not pick a GB rider to lead the team. But Post understood that GB simply did not have a team leader in the peloton. And they haven't since. GB has not had anyone to glorify since Tommy Simpson died on the mountain with a pocket full of dope. And that was a long, long time ago. I think Peter Post ushered in the new era of cycling.

Teams today target certain races. Discovery is a good example, as Milrem is.
But Lim, when you look at your list, all of them have been convicted or admitted doping except Hinault, who was suspended for refusing a doping control and JA who said "A rider does not race on mineral water alone." That shows exactly the important role dope has played in the cycling history.

Cycling was not contested the same throughout Europe. For many years not many Italians would race in France and in reverse. The main races were contested by different nationalities, but not to the degree it is today.


And Bartali, Coppi, and Anquetil was far greater riders then Indurain, Armstrong, and JU were. Whe history is examined, you see that Anquetil may have been the best TDF rider. He dominated.....

And Bartali may be the rider that would have challenged Eddy for greatness if it wasn't for WW2. But we will never know.

Kelly would murder Zabel!
Seriously though, I think Kelly and Zabel are very alike as riders - race all season and race to win each and every time.
I think Sean was a better classic rider than Zabel - but overall there isn't much in it between them, I think.

 

[wolfix]

I didn't mean to compare the two riders.Both are great riders that the rest of the peloton should copy no matter what years they rode. But I think Zabel faces more competiton today because of the greater diversity of the peloton. I don't think we will ever see riders win as many races as we once did. We never have seen LA/JU/Indurain really go out and try and win many classics...... I believe Hinault did. {among others] If a rider was an attacker of Hinaults class today, he would burn himself out mid cycling season.

The structure of cycling has changed dramatically. I think Lemond had a lot to do with that. When he signed that big contract, it opened the door up to riders being able to concentrate on the TDF/Giro/Vuelta and still make a living. That was not true back in the past.

The money structure was set up so teams/riders had to ride all season. I am not happy with cycling as it is today. Too many specialists. I rather enjoyed that year that the TDF did not invite Cipo evn though he wore the rainbow stripes. I am a sprinters fan, but they have to be able to finish the TDF before we declare them great "road" riders. Cipo was capable of finishing it, but denied his fans of that pleasure. Otherwise they need to just race in the velodrome and call it what is..."sprinting."

 

[helmutRoole2]

The only riders who coming to within even a remote distance of EM are Kelly,
Hinault and ironically Erik Zabel

I'd rate EM, Hinault and Kelley well before Armstrong based on the sheer number and magnitude of race wins.

 

[limerickman]

I'd rate EM, Hinault and Kelley well before Armstrong based on the sheer number and magnitude of race wins.

I let Kelly know that you've endorsed him - I'm pedalling with him next week!

 

[helmutRoole2]

I didn't mean to compare the two riders.Both are great riders that the rest of the peloton should copy no matter what years they rode. But I think Zabel faces more competiton today because of the greater diversity of the peloton. I don't think we will ever see riders win as many races as we once did. We never have seen LA/JU/Indurain really go out and try and win many classics...... I believe Hinault did. {among others] If a rider was an attacker of Hinaults class today, he would burn himself out mid cycling season.

The structure of cycling has changed dramatically. I think Lemond had a lot to do with that. When he signed that big contract, it opened the door up to riders being able to concentrate on the TDF/Giro/Vuelta and still make a living. That was not true back in the past.

The money structure was set up so teams/riders had to ride all season. I am not happy with cycling as it is today. Too many specialists. I rather enjoyed that year that the TDF did not invite Cipo evn though he wore the rainbow stripes. I am a sprinters fan, but they have to be able to finish the TDF before we declare them great "road" riders. Cipo was capable of finishing it, but denied his fans of that pleasure. Otherwise they need to just race in the velodrome and call it what is..."sprinting."

+1, but what can be done about it?

 

[Bro Deal]

Kelly would murder Zabel!
Seriously though, I think Kelly and Zabel are very alike as riders - race all season and race to win each and every time.
I think Sean was a better classic rider than Zabel - but overall there isn't much in it between them, I think.

I think the most recent rider that was similar to Kelly was Jalabert, but you would need two or more Jalaberts to equal Kelly's career.

 

[strummer_fan]

You are going to sing this song again, huh? Armstrong was not even the best GT rider of his era. That would be Indurain, who won two GTs in a single year twice. Something that Armstrong never had the ball to attempt.

You are trying to tell us that Armstrong was better than Eddy, a man who raced all year, won the Giro five times, the Vuelta once, and a metric buttload of classics? Eddy said it himself: If he would have just concentrated on the Tour he could have won ten Tour de Frances. By only doing the Tour, Armstrong rendered his number of wins meaningless because they cannot be compared with the other champions.

Being on dope that radically changes capabilities also renders the wins meaningless. Don't expect people to give someone a pat on the back for winning if they cheated.

+1 This is my favorite post of the season. (except for the cheap testicle joke)