Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

I thought Oleg's comments were also interesting too, particularly in relation to budgets.

Oleg Tinkoff: We have similar budgets; we spend 27 million Euro, while they have about 33 million Euro. The fundamental difference between Team Sky and other teams is that they have a long-term project.

That is the area that really was the failure this year. Despite similar budgets, the team around Contador was very poor in both the Giro and the TDF. It is pretty evident that Contador will be much better next year, but he also needs improvements in his supporting cast. I don't think Tinkoff can run back the same cast of characters next year and expect marked improvement. At his age, I don't think Contador can dominate in the mountains in 2016, but he can win the TDF using his all-around abilities and a strong team.

The team in the Tour wasn't that bad.

 

[Publicus]

The TdF squad was pretty good considering 5 of them rode the Giro. And Contador's age is not a hinderance in any way, shape or form. I fully expect (barring injury) that his 2016 form will be on par with his 2014 form.

 

[ILovecycling]

Re: Re:

Contador miscalculated astana in the giro, very simple hitch.

He thought he could win it at 90% which he did but it completely destroyed him.

Thats true but it changes nothing.He wouldnt have won Tour anyway.Nobody will do that nor Quintana,Froome, Nibali, Nobody.its just too hard with this competition, maybe if someone has monster luck with his opponents crashing out, but even in this case I doubt.

lol what? Froome 2013 could do the Giro TOur double with his finger in his ear. He was almost as fatigued going into the TDF as he would be with a Giro behind his belt. Ridiculous 6 month peak and still destroyed the Tour de France. How many minutes weaker would he have been if he had done the Giro instead of Oman-Tirreno-Romandie-Dauphine.
2, 3 maybe. 5,6, no way.

ohh my goodness bit.ches, are you serious here?

I dont understand how someone who follow cycling for years and has good knowledge about this sport can say This.

 

[Carols]

Re: Re:

I thought Oleg's comments were also interesting too, particularly in relation to budgets.

Oleg Tinkoff: We have similar budgets; we spend 27 million Euro, while they have about 33 million Euro. The fundamental difference between Team Sky and other teams is that they have a long-term project.

That is the area that really was the failure this year. Despite similar budgets, the team around Contador was very poor in both the Giro and the TDF. It is pretty evident that Contador will be much better next year, but he also needs improvements in his supporting cast. I don't think Tinkoff can run back the same cast of characters next year and expect marked improvement. At his age, I don't think Contador can dominate in the mountains in 2016, but he can win the TDF using his all-around abilities and a strong team.

The team in the Tour wasn't that bad.

It wasn't that good either!

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I thought Oleg's comments were also interesting too, particularly in relation to budgets.

Oleg Tinkoff: We have similar budgets; we spend 27 million Euro, while they have about 33 million Euro. The fundamental difference between Team Sky and other teams is that they have a long-term project.

That is the area that really was the failure this year. Despite similar budgets, the team around Contador was very poor in both the Giro and the TDF. It is pretty evident that Contador will be much better next year, but he also needs improvements in his supporting cast. I don't think Tinkoff can run back the same cast of characters next year and expect marked improvement. At his age, I don't think Contador can dominate in the mountains in 2016, but he can win the TDF using his all-around abilities and a strong team.

The team in the Tour wasn't that bad.

It wasn't that good either!

It was as good as I expected. They were all decent except for Sagan who was brilliant.

 

[ILovecycling]

@Hitch
Ohh now I see after those post afteer that, you seriously underestimate Giro-Tour double difficulty.AC 2009 wouldnt have done it, he would have been beaten by Schleck.Same with Froome, Quintana or Purito would have won Tour becuse Froome would be tired and sick more than AC from the Giro (good Nibali)

 

[Scarponi]

Re:

Perhaps Tinkov's was a fitting final anlaysis of this Tour. I'm no fan of his, however, one has to admit some of what he says makes sense from the perspective of long term business strategies. Tinkov has a point in suggesting that if the only way to be competitive in the sport is having the type of budget Sky can generate (Murdoch empire) long term, then what will eventually happen (though to a certain degree already has) is a cycling a two speeds: the one of big corp, the other of the strugglers and the survivors. The Tour becomes an even bigger mega-commercial enterprise than it already is, which will make other historically important races on the calendar ever more marginalized and the general impoverishment for them in terms of prestige and revenues this presupposes. Having the teams earn some of the revenues generated by the commercial profits from the big races, would alleviate some of the burden of individual sponsors having to sustain the entire team budgets themselves. Trying to get the other top GC contenders to not focus primarily on the Tour (here his motive in regards to Contador is clear) is a much more complicated matter, however. It isn't going to happen unless the Giro and Vuelta can be sold globally at least to a degree that's comparable with the Tour. What's happened to the contrary is that the Tour, which is justifiably the most prestigious event on the calendar and thus hardest to win, has (not to the benefit of the sport as a whole) taken on a disproportionate position of dominance with all the political clout this entails in an age in which a concentration of wealth means a concentration of power. Tinkov, if I have understood correctly, wants to break that cycle to make the sport as a whole more "fair" as he sees it and more sustainable for the bulk of the sponsors.

Tennis has four majors and they are all pretty high up and well known where as no one outside of cycling knows of the Giro and Veulta. How do we fix this?

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

Perhaps Tinkov's was a fitting final anlaysis of this Tour. I'm no fan of his, however, one has to admit some of what he says makes sense from the perspective of long term business strategies. Tinkov has a point in suggesting that if the only way to be competitive in the sport is having the type of budget Sky can generate (Murdoch empire) long term, then what will eventually happen (though to a certain degree already has) is a cycling a two speeds: the one of big corp, the other of the strugglers and the survivors. The Tour becomes an even bigger mega-commercial enterprise than it already is, which will make other historically important races on the calendar ever more marginalized and the general impoverishment for them in terms of prestige and revenues this presupposes. Having the teams earn some of the revenues generated by the commercial profits from the big races, would alleviate some of the burden of individual sponsors having to sustain the entire team budgets themselves. Trying to get the other top GC contenders to not focus primarily on the Tour (here his motive in regards to Contador is clear) is a much more complicated matter, however. It isn't going to happen unless the Giro and Vuelta can be sold globally at least to a degree that's comparable with the Tour. What's happened to the contrary is that the Tour, which is justifiably the most prestigious event on the calendar and thus hardest to win, has (not to the benefit of the sport as a whole) taken on a disproportionate position of dominance with all the political clout this entails in an age in which a concentration of wealth means a concentration of power. Tinkov, if I have understood correctly, wants to break that cycle to make the sport as a whole more "fair" as he sees it and more sustainable for the bulk of the sponsors.

Tennis has four majors and they are all pretty high up and well known where as no one outside of cycling knows of the Giro and Veulta. How do we fix this?

Why do you want to fix it? It seems fine the way it currently is, the tour can be used to promote the sport and pump money in while the vuelta and giro can be kept for those who love the sport.

 

[Singer01]

Re: Re:

Perhaps Tinkov's was a fitting final anlaysis of this Tour. I'm no fan of his, however, one has to admit some of what he says makes sense from the perspective of long term business strategies. Tinkov has a point in suggesting that if the only way to be competitive in the sport is having the type of budget Sky can generate (Murdoch empire) long term, then what will eventually happen (though to a certain degree already has) is a cycling a two speeds: the one of big corp, the other of the strugglers and the survivors. The Tour becomes an even bigger mega-commercial enterprise than it already is, which will make other historically important races on the calendar ever more marginalized and the general impoverishment for them in terms of prestige and revenues this presupposes. Having the teams earn some of the revenues generated by the commercial profits from the big races, would alleviate some of the burden of individual sponsors having to sustain the entire team budgets themselves. Trying to get the other top GC contenders to not focus primarily on the Tour (here his motive in regards to Contador is clear) is a much more complicated matter, however. It isn't going to happen unless the Giro and Vuelta can be sold globally at least to a degree that's comparable with the Tour. What's happened to the contrary is that the Tour, which is justifiably the most prestigious event on the calendar and thus hardest to win, has (not to the benefit of the sport as a whole) taken on a disproportionate position of dominance with all the political clout this entails in an age in which a concentration of wealth means a concentration of power. Tinkov, if I have understood correctly, wants to break that cycle to make the sport as a whole more "fair" as he sees it and more sustainable for the bulk of the sponsors.

Tennis has four majors and they are all pretty high up and well known where as no one outside of cycling knows of the Giro and Veulta. How do we fix this?

Why do you want to fix it? It seems fine the way it currently is, the tour can be used to promote the sport and pump money in while the vuelta and giro can be kept for those who love the sport.

because if the giro and vuelta were bigger there would be even more money pumped into the sport? though you may feel that would be to the detriment of those 2 races.

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

Perhaps Tinkov's was a fitting final anlaysis of this Tour. I'm no fan of his, however, one has to admit some of what he says makes sense from the perspective of long term business strategies. Tinkov has a point in suggesting that if the only way to be competitive in the sport is having the type of budget Sky can generate (Murdoch empire) long term, then what will eventually happen (though to a certain degree already has) is a cycling a two speeds: the one of big corp, the other of the strugglers and the survivors. The Tour becomes an even bigger mega-commercial enterprise than it already is, which will make other historically important races on the calendar ever more marginalized and the general impoverishment for them in terms of prestige and revenues this presupposes. Having the teams earn some of the revenues generated by the commercial profits from the big races, would alleviate some of the burden of individual sponsors having to sustain the entire team budgets themselves. Trying to get the other top GC contenders to not focus primarily on the Tour (here his motive in regards to Contador is clear) is a much more complicated matter, however. It isn't going to happen unless the Giro and Vuelta can be sold globally at least to a degree that's comparable with the Tour. What's happened to the contrary is that the Tour, which is justifiably the most prestigious event on the calendar and thus hardest to win, has (not to the benefit of the sport as a whole) taken on a disproportionate position of dominance with all the political clout this entails in an age in which a concentration of wealth means a concentration of power. Tinkov, if I have understood correctly, wants to break that cycle to make the sport as a whole more "fair" as he sees it and more sustainable for the bulk of the sponsors.

Tennis has four majors and they are all pretty high up and well known where as no one outside of cycling knows of the Giro and Veulta. How do we fix this?

Why do you want to fix it? It seems fine the way it currently is, the tour can be used to promote the sport and pump money in while the vuelta and giro can be kept for those who love the sport.

because if the giro and vuelta were bigger there would be even more money pumped into the sport? though you may feel that would be to the detriment of those 2 races.

I guess but i would rather keep the giro and vuelta as they are and use the tour and maybe paris nice, criterium du Dauphiné to promote the sport. Therefor you keep tradition and enrich the sport

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

The team in the Tour wasn't that bad.

Fair enough. My choice of 'poor' was probably harsh. Not as strong as 2013 or 2014, so it was more a matter of under-performing expectations. They were likely stretched too thin by the double attempt.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

Perhaps Tinkov's was a fitting final anlaysis of this Tour. I'm no fan of his, however, one has to admit some of what he says makes sense from the perspective of long term business strategies. Tinkov has a point in suggesting that if the only way to be competitive in the sport is having the type of budget Sky can generate (Murdoch empire) long term, then what will eventually happen (though to a certain degree already has) is a cycling a two speeds: the one of big corp, the other of the strugglers and the survivors. The Tour becomes an even bigger mega-commercial enterprise than it already is, which will make other historically important races on the calendar ever more marginalized and the general impoverishment for them in terms of prestige and revenues this presupposes. Having the teams earn some of the revenues generated by the commercial profits from the big races, would alleviate some of the burden of individual sponsors having to sustain the entire team budgets themselves. Trying to get the other top GC contenders to not focus primarily on the Tour (here his motive in regards to Contador is clear) is a much more complicated matter, however. It isn't going to happen unless the Giro and Vuelta can be sold globally at least to a degree that's comparable with the Tour. What's happened to the contrary is that the Tour, which is justifiably the most prestigious event on the calendar and thus hardest to win, has (not to the benefit of the sport as a whole) taken on a disproportionate position of dominance with all the political clout this entails in an age in which a concentration of wealth means a concentration of power. Tinkov, if I have understood correctly, wants to break that cycle to make the sport as a whole more "fair" as he sees it and more sustainable for the bulk of the sponsors.

Tennis has four majors and they are all pretty high up and well known where as no one outside of cycling knows of the Giro and Veulta. How do we fix this?

Why do you want to fix it? It seems fine the way it currently is, the tour can be used to promote the sport and pump money in while the vuelta and giro can be kept for those who love the sport.

True, but for those who love the sport one also can't be exactly thrilled about how much it has become increasingly and disproportionately Tour top heavy since the 80's and 90's. And this has much to do with the relationship that the media and commercial sponsorship has with the event, which, in turn dictates the stakes up for grabs by major team sponsors and how much they are willing to (very little) invest their top riders in other events. Since the risk of sacrificing the star's performances at the Tour is too great.

Nor is it very appealing the corollary of this that to win the Tour has become first and foremost about out-muscling the other teams financially and building an entire season more or less around one event. In a sport that's financially struggling just to maintain some of those very races that those who love the sport don't want to see disappear, this can't be fortuitous. It's becoming more and more onerous for prospective sponsors (while others have already packed it in altogether) to consider entering into the sport and a game that's become the perfect metaphor for how current global capitalism works and the "shock and awe" performances by which the biggest corporate backed team dominate, at the expense of those struggling just to keep up.

The similarity between the current concentration of wealth and the hors catagorie performances of an increasingly sponsorship elite is becoming alarming.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

@Hitch
Ohh now I see after those post afteer that, you seriously underestimate Giro-Tour double difficulty.AC 2009 wouldnt have done it, he would have been beaten by Schleck.Same with Froome, Quintana or Purito would have won Tour becuse Froome would be tired and sick more than AC from the Giro (good Nibali)

Actually given the routes those years and his team, I think he could've done the double if his whole team supported him. Andy wouldn't be able to compensate in those mountains for the two ITTs and the TTT.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Tennis has four majors and they are all pretty high up and well known where as no one outside of cycling knows of the Giro and Veulta. How do we fix this?

Well, like it or not, tennis is a much much bigger sport globally than cycling. In fact, cycling doesn't even compare

 

[ILovecycling]

Re: Re:

@Hitch
Ohh now I see after those post afteer that, you seriously underestimate Giro-Tour double difficulty.AC 2009 wouldnt have done it, he would have been beaten by Schleck.Same with Froome, Quintana or Purito would have won Tour becuse Froome would be tired and sick more than AC from the Giro (good Nibali)

Actually given the routes those years and his team, I think he could've done the double if his whole team supported him. Andy wouldn't be able to compensate in those mountains for the two ITTs and the TTT.

Given the routes AND riders I still think he would have been 2nd (at best), the fatigue from the Giro is just too big to beat Schleck even on that kind of parcourse imho.

 

[Miburo]

Re: Re:

@Hitch
Ohh now I see after those post afteer that, you seriously underestimate Giro-Tour double difficulty.AC 2009 wouldnt have done it, he would have been beaten by Schleck.Same with Froome, Quintana or Purito would have won Tour becuse Froome would be tired and sick more than AC from the Giro (good Nibali)

Actually given the routes those years and his team, I think he could've done the double if his whole team supported him. Andy wouldn't be able to compensate in those mountains for the two ITTs and the TTT.

Given the routes AND riders I still think he would have been 2nd (at best), the fatigue from the Giro is just too big to beat Schleck even on that kind of parcourse imho.

That tour parcours was terrible, contador's best chance for the double was that year, everything was in his favor. He could have gained the lead in the giro with the ITT and the freewheel.

In the tour gain his lead in the TTT and suck andy's wheel.

 

[myrideissteelerthanyours]

Re: Re:

[quote="
Why do you want to fix it?[/quote]

According to Olga because there is a sponsor (Fox/Sky/Murdoch) that is willing to invest in a long term strategy we need to completely change the economics of Pro Cycling so that all teams are the same or at least so that if you are a bluejeans bootlegger and you want to win in cycling you should also get paid to pursue your fantasy. Also success must come without any long term time investment, just instant gratification. The only way to do this is to destroy the difference between all the teams as he has said and also the difference between the races because we need each team to win the biggest race each year otherwise its bad economics therefore there cannot be prestigious races anymore.

 

[ninjadriver]

Re: Re:

Its all a bit weird to me. When he said hed do Giro Tour I thought at least there must be some sort of a plan in place. Right? Because afterall , Contador did have a good run at a Giro Tour double, at least the process, in 2011. He saw that its difficult to perform in TDF after Giro. He also knows that the top riders are faster than they were in 2011 - a slow year.

So surely this year, he would have known that doing it the same way wouldn't work. You need something different or it won't work. Some new training techniques (wink) motivation, whatever, something different.

But now its clear there was, on the contrary, no plan at all. He went into the Tour with no idea how it would go. Basically resigned to failure because if you don't even know what form you will be on, and feel tired, and you go up against Chris Vroome you are going to get your ass kicked. Which is what happened.

And they didn't even have any kind of team. for either Giro or Tour either. They had to have known there was no chance of winning.

Now, maybe Contador decided that he would rather win a Giro than likely come 2nd in the Tour. If he did that, fair enough. Much better decision making than Andy Schleck. Though he might as well have gone for another Vuelta in that case.

But now he says next year he will go for the Tour. So does he think he can actually win it? When hes going to be a year weaker and Froome and Quintana a year stronger?

Or is there some sort of a deal in place between the "big 4" that each year one does the Giro and next year Froome will, opening up the chance for Contador.

It depends how Contador really sees himself. If he acknowledges he is not good enough to beat Froome, then he did the right decision, and took a Giro home. If however he thinks he can beat Froome then its silly to waste a chance at doing so when you are still just about in peak years.

Ultimately Contador will be judged by how many Tours he's won. Froome has now (oficially) as many as him. He's now almost certainly going to retire with more. Contador's status as the best gt rider of his generation look to be slipping away.

So he'll retire now knowing the Giro Tour double wasn't possible in 2015. Something he knew anyway. I hope when he retires he won't have this other doubt lingering in his mind. - Could I have won a Tour de France post suspension.

This is something I have thought of. I mean, given last year, he should have had enough faith in his abilities to battle for a Tour victory, but if that indeed was the case, how come he did the Giro? For, as you say, there is no way he actually thought he could win both this year.

Did he feel that he could not match Froome because of his level in the Dauphine? As in, a top for Froome is too much? Or was it, as you say, a "guaranteed" Giro win vs a chance at a Tour win, and he decided to go for the "safe" bet?

My guess is that Tinkoff pressured Contador into riding both the Giro and the TDF. I can't make sense of his schedule any other way.

 

[SeriousSam]

Interesting assessment from a medical professional who knows cycling well:

Contador's Giro performance was not at his previous level, as I wrote .
His TdF was similar or a little worse , maybe because fatigue and less motivation in the third week of the race.
I suppose he trained too hard between the two races, with not enough recovery.

 

[ninjadriver]

Re: Re:

Its all a bit weird to me. When he said hed do Giro Tour I thought at least there must be some sort of a plan in place. Right? Because afterall , Contador did have a good run at a Giro Tour double, at least the process, in 2011. He saw that its difficult to perform in TDF after Giro. He also knows that the top riders are faster than they were in 2011 - a slow year.

So surely this year, he would have known that doing it the same way wouldn't work. You need something different or it won't work. Some new training techniques (wink) motivation, whatever, something different.

But now its clear there was, on the contrary, no plan at all. He went into the Tour with no idea how it would go. Basically resigned to failure because if you don't even know what form you will be on, and feel tired, and you go up against Chris Vroome you are going to get your ass kicked. Which is what happened.

And they didn't even have any kind of team. for either Giro or Tour either. They had to have known there was no chance of winning.

Now, maybe Contador decided that he would rather win a Giro than likely come 2nd in the Tour. If he did that, fair enough. Much better decision making than Andy Schleck. Though he might as well have gone for another Vuelta in that case.

But now he says next year he will go for the Tour. So does he think he can actually win it? When hes going to be a year weaker and Froome and Quintana a year stronger?

Or is there some sort of a deal in place between the "big 4" that each year one does the Giro and next year Froome will, opening up the chance for Contador.

It depends how Contador really sees himself. If he acknowledges he is not good enough to beat Froome, then he did the right decision, and took a Giro home. If however he thinks he can beat Froome then its silly to waste a chance at doing so when you are still just about in peak years.

Ultimately Contador will be judged by how many Tours he's won. Froome has now (oficially) as many as him. He's now almost certainly going to retire with more. Contador's status as the best gt rider of his generation look to be slipping away.

So he'll retire now knowing the Giro Tour double wasn't possible in 2015. Something he knew anyway. I hope when he retires he won't have this other doubt lingering in his mind. - Could I have won a Tour de France post suspension.

Huh? It's quite obvious his approach was different this year compared to 2011. Weaker in the spring and not in god mode during the Giro. He probably didn't plan for the Giro to be so hard, nor the crashes that happened during the year. It's not some equation where you at the beginning of the year can calculate how good you'll be at the tour.

He was super strong last year and did well in the Vuelta, so the plan was probably to ride in the Tour like in the Vuelta, but he was too fatigued for that and couldn't use enough of the time before the Tour to get in his best shape possible.

Netserk: I agree with you that Contador approached 2015 differently than 2011, but maybe out of necessity. 2011 was before his vacation, 2015 after.

I diverge with you on 2014 TDF/Vuelta as an analogy to 2015 Giro/TDF, although at first blush your argument is convincing. Contador's crashing out of the 2014 TDF so early saved his legs, including his broken one, so he wasn't exhausted in the Vuelta, plus he had 2 more weeks of rest (and bone healing) and then time enough to train back up to good form for the Vuelta (but not top form).

So comparing his 2015 Giro to his 2014 TDF I don't think is an accurate one, because he didn't even race half of the 2014 TDF, and didn't race over the meat of the climbing stages.

I love the concept of going after 2 Grand Tours in one season; however, the only way to achieve this is to do the Giro/Vuelta double. No equation can include the TDF.

 

[ninjadriver]

Re: Re:

Sorry, but Vuelta doesn't mean much. Its the Tour de France. That's where you prove you are the best. Now maybe Contador would have done that in 2014 but there's no guarantee of that at all. Clearly in 2013 he showed he wasn't stronger and this year he showed he's nowhere near as strong as his fans think. The bottom line is that Froome has comfortably flown away from France with 2 Tour de Frances and was also stronger in a 3rd. Contador hasn't even made a podium since 2010.

Hitch you should be ashamed!
As you wrote "greatest GT racer of this generation' that includes the Giro and Vuelta! Froome has 0 of those.
And Contador has shown he can win a GT even if he is not the best in that particular race. It's a special quality - one Froome so far has not shown. It's not just numbers that make a rider "the greatest".
Contador has not even made the podium since 2010. 2011-2015 includes 2 double attempts, 1 TDF he crashed out of, 1 TDF he could not start because he was banned, so in the end only in 1 TDF he got beaten "fair and square" i.e. on equal ground. Everyone with some cycling knowledge knows this and those who do not are not the kind of people we should be engaging with.

LaFlorecita: Your post is correct in every respect, however, Contador is not as powerful 2012 forward as he was 2011 and previous, I think you would agree with that. Pro cycling has changed, except perhaps Team Sky, although David Walsh apparently has total faith in Froome and his group, who miraculously finished 1st, 2nd and 6th (Froome, Porte & Thomas) on the La Pierre-Saint-Martin stage, if I recall.

I miss 2011 Contador, although the current one is amazing at winning on fumes, like you intimate above (reminiscent of his 2008 off-the-beach Giro win over Ricco).

 

[ninjadriver]

Re: Re:

I hope we'll see Contador at his best versus Froome and Quintana are their best next year. Go Alberto!

And Nibali, 4 best climbers and GT riders by a brutal mile.

AND LANDA

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

Interesting assessment from a medical professional who knows cycling well:

Contador's Giro performance was not at his previous level, as I wrote .
His TdF was similar or a little worse , maybe because fatigue and less motivation in the third week of the race.
I suppose he trained too hard between the two races, with not enough recovery.

Funnily enough Alberto himself said he mostly focused on recovery in between the Giro and TDF and didn't do much high-intensity training.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

My guess is that Tinkoff pressured Contador into riding both the Giro and the TDF. I can't make sense of his schedule any other way.

He himself wanted it. Hasn't he stated in the past that his dream would be to win all 3 GTs in 1 season?

 

[ninjadriver]

Re: Re:

Interesting assessment from a medical professional who knows cycling well:

Contador's Giro performance was not at his previous level, as I wrote .
His TdF was similar or a little worse , maybe because fatigue and less motivation in the third week of the race.
I suppose he trained too hard between the two races, with not enough recovery.

Funnily enough Alberto himself said he mostly focused on recovery in between the Giro and TDF and didn't do much high-intensity training.

I read the same, LaFlorecita. Also, Contador's 2015 TDF was waaaaay worse than his previous levels, including his 2015 Giro level. I don't think motivation had anything to do with anything for El Pistolero at any point in the 2015 TDF. Contador got dropped pretty badly on the Col de la Croix de Fer, which wasn't even the final climb and on which Quintana and Froome were not going full gas, as near as I could tell, even when Quintana attacked. No way Contador lacked motivation to the extent that he would allow himself to get dropped on a penultimate climb.

So I disagree with Serious Sam's medical professional buddy's opinion on all counts, except for the fatigue portion.