Alberto Contador suspended until August 2012 (loses all results July 2010 - Jan 2012)

[The Hitch]

They are approximately equal by achievements for me generally. I just don't get why some of Contador's fans on this forum try to diminish Cadel's merits using any absurd explanations. Evans is an outstanding cyclist. Regarding Andy, these syptoms evolved into illness.

?

Who is diminishing Cadel's merits. Where and what are the absurd explanations.

Depending on how you understand the particular qualities of the stages and MJ factor. Equating Bale and stage 3, probably you think, all the favourites had to wait Contador on stage 1 last year

Its ridiculous to say that if someone is not in the yellow jersey you can tell them "**** you im going to screw you over" and then when you get into the jersey BECAUSE you behaved that way, then cry " oh no its unfair that you do the same thing to me, Im in the yellow jersey".

MJ signifies who the leader on the road is, it is not a ticket to behave like a **** (though Frank 08 and Andy 10 seem to think it is).

 

[airstream]

Its ridiculous to say that if someone is not in the yellow jersey you can tell them "**** you im going to screw you over" and then when you get into the jersey BECAUSE you behaved that way, then cry " oh no its unfair that you do the same thing to me, Im in the yellow jersey".

And all fans that booed him for that are ridiculous too and dont know anything about cycling. Would Contador attack them, if Schleck didn't drop his chain? OK. How do you call Sastre's behavior after Menchov's fall at Prato Nevoso? Stupidity / a gesture of goodwill / giveaway? I wouldn't accuse him of that move, if he would have said in the interview: "Yes, he dropped his chain, I saw this and decided to extract maximum out of this situation. It's cycling, guys..." But no, even in this controversial condition Contador considered himself to be the smartest.

Sorry, probably, I misunderstood something, reading c&cfans posts, but I caught some dissatisfaction from Evans win on the forum.

 

[The Hitch]

And all fans that booed him for that are ridiculous too and dont know anything about cycling. .

Word of advice. If you are serious about discussing something with someone never use the "oh but other people say so" logic. It does not even begin to make a proper argument.

I dont care if every single man woman and child and dog in the whole wide world booed Contador, that is not an argument in and of itself. The fact that lots of people believe something does not make them right.

But please do tell me why the yellow jersey should be so holy that you are not allowed to attack it?

 

[airstream]

Word of advice. If you are serious about discussing something with someone never use the "oh but other people say so" logic. It does not even begin to make a proper argument.

I dont care if every single man woman and child and dog in the whole wide world booed Contador, that is not an argument in and of itself. The fact that lots of people believe something does not make them right.

But please do tell me why the yellow jersey should be so holy that you are not allowed to attack it?

Well, you see, you ignore the questions you wouldn't like to answer. It's not about the fact of attack itself. The attack occurred only thanks to the opponent's misfortune, and wasn't planned. Thanks for your traditional moralities.

 

[The Hitch]

Well, you see, you ignore the questions you wouldn't like to answer. It's not about the fact of attack itself. The attack occurred only thanks to the opponent's misfortune, and wasn't planned. Thanks for your traditional moralities.

Err yes I see a lot of stuff about me in this post but what is your argument?

I dont see how saying that you dont like my "traditional moralities", whatever that is supposed to mean, answers any of the questions I asked.

 

[airstream]

Err yes I see a lot of stuff about me in this post but what is your argument?

I dont see how saying that you dont like my "traditional moralities", whatever that is supposed to mean, answers any of the questions I asked.

I won't fight against you in a wordy balancing act, you're a lot stronger. We clearly got each other's views on the chaingate.

 

[Walkman]

Ah come on, even you, as a hater, should see that Alberto is better than either Evans or Andy baby. The fact that if Alberto hadn't been so unlucky, he would've had 6 Tour wins by now, should make that obvious.

Are you saying AC would have more Tour wins is he hadn't had all this "bad luck"?

If anything AC's has been very lucky, and I don't really understand how people can deny that. Almost every major GC-rider from pre-2006 had been cleared out of AC's way before the 2007 Tour and still, they had to kick a guy out after 17 stages for get AC the win. Lets face it, with Armstong retired, Landis caught, Rasmussen thrown out, Vino crashing and got caught wich eliminated Kloden and Kash and with Basso and Ullrich not getting a pass as AC did in regards to the OP there weren't that many GC-riders left to beat. So don't come and say AC is soooooo unlucky to not have 6 Tour wins by now.

It's not about AC being better than Evans and Andy. It's about your lack of respect for these rider.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Are you saying AC would have more Tour wins is he hadn't had all this "bad luck"?

If anything AC's has been very lucky, and I don't really understand how people can deny that. Almost every major GC-rider from pre-2006 had been cleared out of AC's way before the 2007 Tour and still, they had to kick a guy out after 17 stages for get AC the win. Lets face it, with Armstong retired, Landis caught, Rasmussen thrown out, Vino crashing and got caught wich eliminated Kloden and Kash and with Basso and Ullrich not getting a pass as AC did in regards to the OP there weren't that many GC-riders left to beat. So don't come and say AC is soooooo unlucky to not have 6 Tour wins by now.

It's not about AC being better than Evans and Andy. It's about your lack of respect for these rider.

Oh, I do respect them (well, Evans, Andy not that much anymore). But Alberto could've won the 2008 Tour, won the 2010 Tour and could've won the 2011 and 2012 Tour. And 2 + 4 = 6.

And so what? Maybe he was lucky in 2007. I won't argue about that. But I would call 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012 bad luck.

 

[LaFlorecita]

And all fans that booed him for that are ridiculous too and dont know anything about cycling.

Yes they are ridiculous. I can understand they were displeased but at least show some respect. Booing athletes is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. Whatever crime they have commited, they're still athletes that give everything for the sport.

 

[LaFlorecita]

the choice is yours, Little Flower, either you take off the blinders, or remain ignorant.

If taking off the blinders means I have to think Alberto dopes then I'd rather keep them on.

 

[Ripper]

Oh, I do respect them (well, Evans, Andy not that much anymore). But Alberto could've won the 2008 Tour, won the 2010 Tour and could've won the 2011 and 2012 Tour. And 2 + 4 = 6.

And so what? Maybe he was lucky in 2007. I won't argue about that. But I would call 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012 bad luck.

Actually, DBD has been lucky in most of his tours. While the strongest wins, you need some luck too. A crash that takes you back 0.25% kills it for you. Evans had a crash in '08 and it clearly took its toll. Ullrich had a nasty crash the day before 2005 Tour and it had huge impact. Crashes clearly had imact last year. Bad luck for DBD would have been two years for OP, crashes, two years right away for 2010, etc. Which would actually have him with fewer wins and likely no where.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Actually, DBD has been lucky in most of his tours. While the strongest wins, you need some luck too. A crash that takes you back 0.25% kills it for you. Evans had a crash in '08 and it clearly took its toll. Ullrich had a nasty crash the day before 2005 Tour and it had huge impact. Crashes clearly had imact last year. Bad luck for DBD would have been two years for OP, crashes, two years right away for 2010, etc. Which would actually have him with fewer wins and likely no where.

You have some sort of point... But to call everyone who didn't crash and lose time because of it lucky goes a bit far imo.

Btw, DBD? Do I even want to know.

 

[Walkman]

But I would call 2008..."(...)".. bad luck.

Why would you call 2008 bad luck? I am pretty sure none forced AC's to sign with a team that recently had been thrown out of the Tour (even if I think I remember something of no other teams wanting to sign AC back then, I wonder why?).

So if by "bad luck" mean "he did brought it on himself in 2008" yeah, then I agree.

 

[The Plediadian]

Why would you call 2008 bad luck? I am pretty sure none forced AC's to sign with a team that recently had been thrown out of the Tour (even if I think I remember something of no other teams wanting to sign AC back then, I wonder why?).

So if by "bad luck" mean "he did brought it on himself in 2008" yeah, then I agree.

It has been said about Alberto that he has a lot to learn. I will bet, riding the toughest races on the cycling calendar and having them taken away are tough lessons. He has left Saxo in a lurch.
He will likely pay large fines to the CAS/UCI on top of his huge lawyers fees.
Hard lessons for Alberto.

 

[Ripper]

Btw, DBD? Do I even want to know.

I don't think you do

With respect to luck - I was not saying that everyone who did not crash was lucky, or even that luck was the only reason (let's face it, skill and tactics play a huge role in avoiding crashes). I was just saying bad luck, even just a little bit of bad luck, could easily end GC aspirations in races decided by (sometimes) less than one minute after 3 weeks of racing.

 

[uphillstruggle]

But Alberto could've won the 2008 Tour, won the 2010 Tour and could've won the 2011 and 2012 Tour. And 2 + 4 = 6.

And so what? Maybe he was lucky in 2007. I won't argue about that. But I would call 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012 bad luck.

2008 - yes he probably would have won that one but last year he didn't have the form. He crashed, sure, but at no point did he show his normal level. As for 2007, 2010 and 2012, that depend on your view of doping and its consequences. If Rasmussen was doping and AC not they he was not lucky he got the win he deserved but if they were both doping he was lucky. Same applies, albeit with AC being the unlucky one with the 2010 and 2012 tours. If we make the ridiculous assumption they are all clean then he has gained 1, lost 3 (potentially) through 'luck'.

 

[Christian]

I've been wondering - do the riders that now move up the standings retrospectively earn more points? Take AG2R for example, they were really struggling to make the cut and had to hire some people from the Asia Tour to get enough points, but now Gadret finished on the podium, one place up in many mountain stages, Dupont in 11th. Maybe it doesn't make a huge difference but still I can imagine in some cases it might.

 

[The Plediadian]

Interestingly Greg LeMond called out Contador for his Verbier climb in the 2009 Tour.
Greg said this was the fastest climb, and Albertos' VO2 figures had never been recorded with any other cyclists.
Curious, Albertos' last GT win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Contador

 

[SiAp1984]

Ah come on, even you, as a hater, should see that Alberto is better than either Evans or Andy baby. The fact that if Alberto hadn't been so unlucky, he would've had 6 Tour wins by now, should make that obvious.

I am not a hater. I do not like Contador - neither as a rider nor as the person he is in the media - but I do not hate him. I even liked what he did in the Alp d'Huez stage last year and would - back then - have liked him to win that one.

But besides that, one does not have to be a hater to recognize that

- the Tour 2010 even without the clen belonged to Andy, who - nowadays - might be the better climber

and

- the tour 2011 clearly belonged to Evans, who was much! stronger than AC in the ITT and on the climbs (and even in the uphill sprints).

So you don't have to disrespect AC to acknowledge those performances. And, the other way round, you don't have to disrespect Schleck and Evans to make Contador look better.

Last remark: We don't know what AC could achieve clean, but he clearly is one of the most talented riders of his generation. No hate because of that from my side.

 

[Angliru]

It has been said about Alberto that he has a lot to learn. I will bet, riding the toughest races on the cycling calendar and having them taken away are tough lessons. He has left Saxo in a lurch.
He will likely pay large fines to the CAS/UCI on top of his huge lawyers fees.
Hard lessons for Alberto.

Saxo knew exactly what they were getting into evidenced by their public support of Contador even after the decision was made. They apparently figure that he is worth the risk.

 

[The Plediadian]

Saxo knew exactly what they were getting into evidenced by their public support of Contador even after the decision was made. They apparently figure that he is worth the risk.

I thought Contador was going to get off too. I was surprised by the harshness of the CAS decision.

 

[WillemS]

I do not want to get involved in the possibly interesting, but difficult discussion about the Contador verdict. However, today's news about the Saxo bank ad depicting Contador (Cyclingnews.com: Saxo Bank show support for Contador), for me, shows that there is still a problem with the attitude towards doping in the professional peleton. Although whether Contador actually used doping is questionable, he is banned based on the current rules and I therefore feel his former (?) team should accept that. We might question the rules, but this just undermines the whole system and quite possibly gives the wrong impression to young riders tempted to dope. You can get a ban and still get open support from anyone, make money with ads and be seen as a 'good guy'. This is not going to help. Contador should accept his ban, Saxo Bank as well, and lay back a bit (or appeal).

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I do not want to get involved in the possibly interesting, but difficult discussion about the Contador verdict. However, today's news about the Saxo bank ad depicting Contador (Cyclingnews.com: Saxo Bank show support for Contador), for me, shows that there is still a problem with the attitude towards doping in the professional peleton. Although whether Contador actually used doping is questionable, he is banned based on the current rules and I therefore feel his former (?) team should accept that. We might question the rules, but this just undermines the whole system and quite possibly gives the wrong impression to young riders tempted to dope. You can get a ban and still get open support from anyone, make money with ads and be seen as a 'good guy'. This is not going to help. Contador should accept his ban, Saxo Bank as well, and lay back a bit (or appeal).

It was an ad for the sponsor Saxo Bank, not the team.

Susan

 

[WillemS]

It was an ad for the sponsor Saxo Bank, not the team.

Susan

That changes things, a bit. Thanks for clarifying.

However, I don't think the ad was published without knowledge from either the team or Contador himself. For me, it seems a bit provoking to publish such an ad and to publish it in L'Equipe is probably not a coincidence. I don't know if this is good for the doping sentiment in cycling. Already there are cycling big-shots that keep shouting their enormous belief in Contador's innocence, without them having had access to the case's details or the biomedical knowledge to make a well-founded judgement.

Although it's a questionable case, I think we should direct our questions towards the regulations and not this case per se. From what I've seen and heard, the ban is just a consequence of the current regulations, probably without leeway to successfully appeal, ergo, a sound judgement according to the established regulations. We wouldn't have had this long discussion about the justice of the ban if it was Joe Nobody that got convicted, then we would have accepted the ban as a consequence of the regulations.

 

[sniper]

That changes things, a bit. Thanks for clarifying.

However, I don't think the ad was published without knowledge from either the team or Contador himself. For me, it seems a bit provoking to publish such an ad and to publish it in L'Equipe is probably not a coincidence. I don't know if this is good for the doping sentiment in cycling. Already there are cycling big-shots that keep shouting their enormous belief in Contador's innocence, without them having had access to the case's details or the biomedical knowledge to make a well-founded judgement.

Although it's a questionable case, I think we should direct our questions towards the regulations and not this case per se. From what I've seen and heard, the ban is just a consequence of the current regulations, probably without leeway to successfully appeal, ergo, a sound judgement according to the established regulations. We wouldn't have had this long discussion about the justice of the ban if it was Joe Nobody that got convicted, then we would have accepted the ban as a consequence of the regulations.

i think it changes zero.
your first post was spot on, as is your second.
this ad says all about the perception of doping in topsports. only very few really care. the sponsors care about name-recognition. cheating is a minor issue. It also shows once more that the gains of doping outweigh the risks of getting caught.