Forum menu
Contador for a 1 ye...
 

[Closed] Contador for a 1 year ban...

Posts: 8758
Full Member
 

It is an interesting point about Schleck, if Contador doped and he could stay with him in the mountains then it does raise questions. He has shown a lot more weaknesses in the past though so probably deserves the benefit of the doubt for now...


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 11:30 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

He has shown a lot more weaknesses in the past though so probably deserves the benefit of the doubt for now...

I don't accept that, you can't have it all ways. Benefit of the doubt for one, yet guilt beyond reasonable doubt for others.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 11:33 am
Posts: 12088
Full Member
 

I'd like to think Schleck is clean, comes across as a top bloke

Contador comes across OK in Spanish, too. I'd have liked him to be clean, as well.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 11:35 am
Posts: 27
Free Member
 

I fail to see why performances fluctuating between weakness and being one of the best climbers in the world should be a reason for giving benefit of the doubt.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 11:50 am
Posts: 8758
Full Member
 


I don't accept that, you can't have it all ways. Benefit of the doubt for one, yet guilt beyond reasonable doubt for others.

You don't have to accept it and I can have it whatever way I want, I'm stating my opinion not fact. If some fishy stories/circumstantial evidence came out about Schleck then I'd stop giving him the benefit of the doubt to. Others probably already think he's dirty and others will think he's clean until proven guilty, that's their prerogative.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 12:01 pm
Posts: 27
Free Member
 

You know about F. Schleck and Dr Fuentes, then?
highly circumstantial for Schleck minor, admittedly


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 12:06 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

I'm stating my opinion not fact.

Of course you can, but you lose any credibility, in my eyes.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 12:07 pm
Posts: 27
Free Member
 

riding for B Riis - not the slightest circumstantial whiff of fish?


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 12:21 pm
Posts: 2279
Free Member
 

Lance, clean? Hahahahaha etc.

Unfortunately cycling is like lots of other corrupt parts of human society and endeavor. If your face fits, you get away with it because the corruption is institutionalised.

Lance was too benefical to cycling to get caught at his peak. Floyds face doesn't fit, and Contadors did until his support dramatically dropped among fans and officials due partly to chaingate. Now he is a valid target in the attrition against drugs in the peloton.

Bring it on I'd say. I just wish they'd deal with the dopers even when they are in a position of power and at their peak.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 12:27 pm
Posts: 5938
Free Member
 

if some fishy stories/circumstantial evidence came out about Schleck then I'd stop giving him the benefit of the doubt to

Research FAIL


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 8758
Full Member
 

I'm aware of the Fuentes stuff with Frank and ofc Riis's past and him being Andy's previous DS but those alone don't pass my personal guilty test as they are both more indirect links, I wouldn't argue that he's clean to someone stating he's a doper though.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 1:34 pm
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Waderider, I always thought the 'French have it in for him'.

So how does your conspiracy theory work in France?


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 1:41 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Just as a totally irrelevant point I thought I'd mention that I saw Riis and Contador close up in November as team Saxobank had a team building thing at the centre where I was windsurfing (I don't know whether the centre owner upgrading me when I started making a fuss about how worn out the boards were has anything to do with that 😉 ). I resisted the temptation to describe Riss as "Mr 60%".


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 1:47 pm
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

fail to see why performances fluctuating between weakness and being one of the best climbers in the world should be a reason for giving benefit of the doubt

Have you tried riding over 120 miles a day as fast as you can without having an off day? Does not sound easy to me. i knwo when I ride dailysome days - for no apparent reason I have dead legs the next day I can be back in the zone


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 1:52 pm
Posts: 5938
Free Member
 

Have you tried riding over 120 miles a day as fast as you can without having an off day? Does not sound easy to me. i knwo when I ride dailysome days - for no apparent reason I have dead legs the next day I can be back in the zone

So you're comparing yourself to the fittest men in the world?
They train their entire life, 6 hours a day so they can perform everyday, fluctuating performance by a top rider like Schleck is very suspicious


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 1:58 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Tango Man, thanks for the science, unfortunately all it does is point out that there have been other cases of clen poisoning from meat and that contador tested at a low concentration. It then makes a huge leap to state that ingestion from the alleged Spanish beef is extremly likely, without even considering other methods of getting into his system, i.e autologous blood doping.

Don Simon your faith in the Spanish cycling authorities to go after their best asset is touching though I fear missplaced. They been trying as hard as contador to get out of this, and they have previous. They only booked Valverde after they were basically forced to do so.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 2:01 pm
Posts: 27
Free Member
 

Junkyard - You and I are not proffessional athletes.
Granted, the guy isn't always riding to win. Just that if I had to pick a factor to justify giving the benefit of the doubt to a professional cyclist it would be consistency of performance not variability.

I'm not picking on Schlecklet in particular, I have a very cynical view of pro cycling.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 2:08 pm
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

fluctuating performance by a top rider like Schleck is very suspicious

Aye sometimes they are dying on their ass during a stage and really need that rest day coming up.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 2:23 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

It seems highly unlikely that Contador ingested clenbuterol from consuming beef as its not licensed to be used on animals for human consumption in Europe, in any case he would be more likely to be contaminated if he ate cattle liver that could cause lung problems anyway, so if he has been using clenbuterol then he is very foolish as it can cause serious health problems never mind the cheating.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 2:33 pm
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

True- why the 'my friend bought me beef from a Butcher'. Which one? 'we can't remember'.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 2:36 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

hora - Member
Waderider, I always thought the 'French have it in for him'.

So how does your conspiracy theory work in France?

Despite the French public not liking LA much, the TDF love him - not publically maybe but Lance has been great for the race financially - huge interest from round the world which leads to sponsorship/etc.

As to the discussion about inconsistent/consistent performances, it's been argued both ways for years and history (eg riders since known to have cheated) shows that doping neither makes you consistent or not - some riders simple are more consistent than others.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 2:37 pm
Posts: 27
Free Member
 

Perhaps they only told him it was beef.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/10/news/spanish-police-uncover-clenbuterol-ring-used-in-horses-livestock_147239#

This Saxobank teambuilding camp... I wonder where it was?


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 2:39 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

So while extracting blood during their training camp, he'd accidentally ingested clembuterol? Along with the plasticisers 😉


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 2:41 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

All riders bend the rules, some more than others. I can't see any rider being 100% clean throughout their career. Think it’s a shame that Alberto has had a ban on a technicality, but other leaders of tours have had their jerseys removed without ever being tested positive, so can’t see how he can complain.
Anyway, I can imagine Alberto wrapping up his yellow jersey and posting 2nd class to Andy now. Think it might be a bit on the small size.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 2:46 pm
Posts: 27
Free Member
 

Weather is nice.

http://www.islandconnections.eu/1000003/1000043/0/31002/daily-news-article.html


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 2:46 pm
Posts: 5938
Free Member
 

Think it’s a shame that Alberto has had a ban on a technicality

Eh, what technicality? that he was caught doping??


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 2:48 pm
 Haze
Posts: 5445
Free Member
 

Wouldn't he have been at the Astana training camp - or was this also in the Canaries?


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 3:00 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Sure was. All I'm trying to say is that all riders dope, some more than others. I agree he should have had a ban, but I was refering to, it wasn't in the same vain as people like Landis that's all.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 3:03 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

It's like you can't be a bit pregnant...


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 3:04 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Its a whole sorry affair, dopers just ruin the entire of pro cycling. I love pro cycling but its getting harder and harder to perceive true talent when speculation about doping surrounds all the top players.

I mean, even Schleck who I would never expect to be a doper. You get a young man getting better and better over the seasons until he reaches the top of the game and then is performing on par with a doper. The uncertainty of not knowing if its raw talent and hardwork or drugs takes away all the majestic of the triumphs.

Dopers convicted with 100% certainty should have life time bans or shot out of a canon.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 3:34 pm
Posts: 6127
Full Member
 

gravitysucks - Member

If Contador was cheating in the 2010 Tour was Schleck clean?

Did you see the way he went after getting his chain back on after the incident on Port de Balès

A point I've made a couple of times - given how much time Schleck took out of his TT performance, you do have to wonder how exactly he improved that much in a year, when his body shape allegedly doesn't suit TTs


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 3:48 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Yeh thats what annoys me about the whole affair, if you get good enough your almost to good. He could be a genuine talent but the dopers shadow over the sport ruins it.

It makes you wonder if we could ever have a genunie talent to be proud of. If wiggo suddenly takes a podium this year (certainly within his capabilties) would people automatically think drugs after last years performance? and Wiggo's def a rider I would put down as having a totally clean career, whenever that ends.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 3:57 pm
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

What about Lance going to his grave knowing that he was clean?


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Dopers convicted with 100% certainty should have life time bans or shot out of a canon.

It's a nice idea, but would mean the end of all the great tour riders in history. Drugs will and has always been a part of our sport, to a greater or lesser extent. Personally I don't feel it makes them any less of a rider.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 4:03 pm
Posts: 0
 

gravitysucks - Member

and Wiggo's def a rider I would put down as having a totally clean career, whenever that ends.


You've got to be kidding me! How naive are you? Have you read any of "Wiggo's" statements regarding Lance and Landis? The guy totally supports the Omerta in the Peleton. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. If he was really innocent he'd be supporting the likes of Landis and Kimmage for blowing the sport open and going after the real truth, not the manufactured idea of truth that Contadoper, Pharmstrong and Schleck want you to believe.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 4:11 pm
Posts: 27
Free Member
 

Rules are rules and UCI should enforce them or change them.
There are riders who don't dope - they don't win GTs, they don't get big contracts.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 4:14 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Don Simon your faith in the Spanish cycling authorities to go after their best asset is touching though I fear missplaced. They been trying as hard as contador to get out of this, and they have previous. They only booked Valverde after they were basically forced to do so.

I accept that your relationship and working knowledge of the RFEC will give you a greater insight than me. Don Carlos Castaño will have made his decision based on the evidence and not hearsay and will support the rider as being innocent until proven guilty. He will not have risked his reputation as president on the short term gains that one cyclist would give him, even if that cyclist is Contador, there are other Spanish cyclists who could win the Tour. There are examples of cyclists who have been caught doping and quietly banned, no support, no excuses.

It seems highly unlikely that Contador ingested clenbuterol from consuming beef as its not licensed to be used on animals for human consumption in Europe, in any case he would be more likely to be contaminated if he ate cattle liver that could cause lung problems anyway, so if he has been using clenbuterol then he is very foolish as it can cause serious health problems never mind the cheating.

Are you accusing him of consciously using or ingesting by accident? Is he foolish for using a product which could give him health problems? I agree, this would be foolish and probably unlikely. Or did he ingest accidently, which would comply with the story and contradict any deliberate doping allegation?
It is also a little naïve to think that there is no possibility of clem entering the food chain, especially here. Are all the UK farms that sell green top milk authorised? Or can you op down to your local farm and get a couple of pints of raw milk? Same difference between the official line and reality, no?


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 4:39 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Rules are rules and UCI should enforce them or change them.

Did he actually break the rules as he tested at levels significantly lower than UCI test for? And therefore is being found positive through incorrect testing? I may be wrong here though.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 4:42 pm
Posts: 5938
Free Member
 

don simon, no the tests they previously used would not of found that concentration of the drug, but the UCI and WADA guidelines say that anything over 0% is illegal


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 4:47 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Fair enough... 😆


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

ir12daveor
You've got to be kidding me! How naive are you? Have you read any of "Wiggo's" statements regarding Lance and Landis?

What so you think Wiggins is a doper? any evidence there fella?
Yes I have read statements, that basically say he'll believe Armstrong innocent until proven guilty and that Landis has questionable credability. Thats about right isn't it? He's entitled to an opinion as much as you or me. To say that he's guilty of doping based on his opinion is a pretty big stretch.
If all the Pro riders that don't support Landis are also guilty of doping thats a hell of a lot of riders!

Was it not Wiggins calling for all testing data to be made public? doesn't sound like a doper to me.....


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 4:57 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

What about Lance going to his grave knowing that he was clean?

You've invented mind bleach?


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 5:01 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Was it not Wiggins calling for all testing data to be made public? doesn't sound like a doper to me.....

Surely that can't be evidence of innocence either? Lance is [i]known[/i] to be guilty of doping yet has been able to stay ahead of the testers and not tested positive and here is Wiggins using the same argument. Is it not possible that a doper is so confident that the testing methods are so far behind the doping that the results can be posted. Dopers are not going to dope in the knowledge that they ar going to be caught. I am not accusing Wiggins of doping, just saying innocent until proven guilty. Lance is innocent until proven guilty, Landis has confessed his guilt, Contador is guilty, Wiggins is innocent, etc....


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 5:06 pm
Posts: 8758
Full Member
 

It is fairly pointless working down the peloton trying to decide when the clean riders start but it is a shame that from now on any great performances are more likely to attract suspicion rather than applause. I'd support life time bans as well, it's the only disincentive big enough to stop most younger riders (currently it's almost down to the level of take the risk and get a pro contract or ride clean and it's unlikely they'll get a contract unless they're exceptionally gifted). A talented sub 25-yr old rider can easily get over a 2 year ban and still have a career (it's not like teams aren't picking up past-banned riders).

And given the doping can lead to health issues and even death it's not an acceptable solution to just accept doping and say they're all doing it so it's a level playing field.


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 5:07 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

did wiggins ride really well in the tour one year, then change teams and ride less really well?

just saying like 😯


 
Posted : 27/01/2011 5:11 pm
Page 2 / 4