Contador and Froome: Clean or Dirty?

[LaFlorecita]

Has not Florecita admitted to trying to have it both ways ?

Occasionally I like to express my believe in Contador. (Such an expression will almost always be followed by smilies)

That does not mean I actually believe he is clean it is just for fun.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Is it technically possible to postulate Bertie aint dirty?

Of course it is, and you know it. In various ways. The most obvious one is that Contador stopped doping.

Wonder btw if they,re on the same dope or if contador has sticked to his old techniques whilst froome is into more experimental stuff.

Contador is working with De Jongh, and is getting as skinny as Froome, so I guess he's on the same stuff.

 

[ebandit]

Of course it is, and you know it. In various ways. The most obvious one is that Contador stopped doping.



Contador is working with De Jongh, and is getting as skinny as Froome, so I guess he's on the same stuff.

on which day did alberto try not doping? as you suggest we're gonna see a whole different level of entertainment in this years tour

da dawg is gonna get scorched

Mark L

 

[red_flanders]

So just over 100 poll responses at this point. Interesting how well spread out everything but "both doping" is. The largest other area is "Froom clean or don't know", but trailing a wildly distant second/third.

The one response that puzzles me is the "I don't know". I would have thought everyone would assume at least Bertie is a doper as he got sanctioned, but I don't think given the details of that case it's unreasonable to think that he got popped for something he wasn't actually doing. All really interesting either way.

Thanks everyone for the responses!

 

[HSNHSN]

A big problem in the poll is what to do when you think it's highly likely someone dopes, but aren't quite sure enough to vote that he actually is a doper. If this is the case for both riders, should one then just vote "I don't know"?

 

[Netserk]

The poll doesn't ask if you are sure, if you are certain or if you know. It asks 'what do you think?' alas if you think someone dopes (but are not certain), you still think someone is a doper. At least that's my interpretation.

 

[JimmyFingers]

So just over 100 poll responses at this point. Interesting how well spread out everything but "both doping" is. The largest other area is "Froom clean or don't know", but trailing a wildly distant second/third.

The one response that puzzles me is the "I don't know". I would have thought everyone would assume at least Bertie is a doper as he got sanctioned, but I don't think given the details of that case it's unreasonable to think that he got popped for something he wasn't actually doing. All really interesting either way.

Thanks everyone for the responses!

The thing about Berti is that what he was popped for was minute amounts of clen, not enough to actually enhance performance. He may or may not have been doping before then, but if he was it is likely to have been something more significant than clen, and chances are the clen was accidental, much like Mick Rogers (who again is likely to have been doing something more significant throughout his career).

I voted 'I don't know' because I don't, and until I am certain I prefer to give the riders the benefit of the doubt. I think there is an element of believing in due process, that the certainty many here have of these rider's guilt forms part of this Internet lynch mob, and sees the sort of manifestations of aggression and violence towards the riders we saw at last year's TdF and before. For me that is a dangerous and unhealthy path to tread. I'm not a doping apologist, I'll never defend someone who I believe to be dirty (which is how I commonly held to be here) but I do choose to defend them against the more extreme, often irrational accusations as I feel there should be some sort of counter-narrative based on logic and coherent arguments rather than the combative, emotive reactions from many.

My personal belief is we are all cycling fans, and have a mutual vested interest in a clean sport we can believe in, which is my I sometimes struggle to understand why we end up at each other's throats, and why some seem so determined not to give anyone in the sport a chance to change.


If any of that makes an sense.

 

[Granville57]

The thing about Berti is that what he was popped for was minute amounts of clen, not enough to actually enhance performance.

Are we really back to square one on this?

I feel there should be some sort of counter-narrative based on logic and coherent arguments

Does the following seem "logical" to you?

He may or may not have been doping before then...

Really?
I am reminded of this:

Really, all we have is the "microscopic" amounts of clen (that shouldn't have been there in the first place)?

So Saiz, Puerto, Discovery, Bruyneel, his sprints with Rasmussen, the plasticizers, Pepe Martí, his blatant lies, all of that never happened.

K.

chances are the clen was accidental, much like Mick Rogers

You had me there for a moment, Jimmy. You really did. Now I just see you're having fun.
Leaving Mick entirely out of this, there was nothing "accidental" about the clenbuterol being in Contador's system in the first place.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

This poll is about as credible as the earth is flat. The "sample" is probably the most biased, cynical and partial as a sample could get. Polling the Clinic on who is not doping is like polling the mafia on the morality of loan sharking.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This poll is about as credible as the earth is flat. The "sample" is probably the most biased, cynical and partial as a sample could get. Polling the Clinic on who is not doping is like polling the mafia on the morality of loan sharking.

Missing the point is par for the course.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Missing the point is par for the course.

He does have a point.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

He does have a point.

I am pretty sure the poll was created to see how many people are "hypocrites", thinking Froome is dirty but Contador is cleans.

You know the refrain: wah wah wah everyone picks on Froome / Sky, what about Contador, why are there no Contador threads wah wah wah.

Robbie is completely missing the point of the poll.

 

[del1962]

So just over 100 poll responses at this point. Interesting how well spread out everything but "both doping" is. The largest other area is "Froom clean or don't know", but trailing a wildly distant second/third.

The one response that puzzles me is the "I don't know". I would have thought everyone would assume at least Bertie is a doper as he got sanctioned, but I don't think given the details of that case it's unreasonable to think that he got popped for something he wasn't actually doing. All really interesting either way.

Thanks everyone for the responses!

As far as Contador goes, I took it to mean is he clean now, not in the past, which is why I voted don't know, I would say the same about Valverde even though he did dope in the past.

What would be more intesting is these options

1. Almost certain he dopes
2. Think he dopes
3. Dont Know
4. Think he is clean
5. Almost certain he is clean

Though with too many permutations you cant set this up for two people

 

[Cance > TheRest]

I am pretty sure the poll was created to see how many people are "hypocrites", thinking Froome is dirty but Contador is cleans.

You know the refrain: wah wah wah everyone picks on Froome / Sky, what about Contador, why are there no Contador threads wah wah wah.

Robbie is completely missing the point of the poll.

Or hypocrites in the opposite sense, believing Froome to be clean and AC to be doped. Both groups exist on this forum

 

[JimmyFingers]

Are we really back to square one on this?


Does the following seem "logical" to you?
Really?
I am reminded of this:




You had me there for a moment, Jimmy. You really did. Now I just see you're having fun.
Leaving Mick entirely out of this, there was nothing "accidental" about the clenbuterol being in Contador's system in the first place.

Sorry but just yawn, I wasn't trying to defend Contador, just to illustrate why I voted I don't know. Not everything needs to be an argument. Take it to the Contador thread FFS

 

[Carstenbf]

Or hypocrites in the opposite sense, believing Froome to be clean and AC to be doped. Both groups exist on this forum

Or at least they like to wind each other up.

 

[Von Mises]

The one response that puzzles me is the "I don't know". I would have thought everyone would assume at least Bertie is a doper as he got sanctioned, but I don't think given the details of that case it's unreasonable to think that he got popped for something he wasn't actually doing. All really interesting either way.

I also responded "I don't know" because I was thinking about present, not past. I am sure he was a doper, but I do not know is he now.

 

[JimmyFingers]

This.......

 

[Walkman]

Or hypocrites in the opposite sense, believing Froome to be clean and AC to be doped. Both groups exist on this forum

Well, to be fair, one of them is a convicted drug cheat and the other isn't.

 

[RownhamHill]

Or hypocrites in the opposite sense, believing Froome to be clean and AC to be doped. Both groups exist on this forum

Of course neither this, nor the opposite (Froome is dirty:Conti is clean) is actually hypocritical in any sense – if you happen to believe that Froom is dirty based on whatever (let's say the suddeness of his transformation, sketchiness over his Bahzillia story, and his ability to maintain extremely low weight/body fat), but you also happen to give Conti the benefit of the doubt (say, for example, because of his palmares from an early age, the seeming drop off/inconsistency in his form since pre-ban days, and the looming threat of a ban for life if popped again) then that's just what you believe, and it's not really hypocritical to think that actually not all professional riders are one homogeneous mass, who consistently act in exactly the same way across the board.

Personally I don't know either way - I'd like to think they're both clean (now at least, I wouldn't go into bat for Conti's cleanliness c2007), but I can see how one or both them might not be.

 

[red_flanders]

I also responded "I don't know" because I was thinking about present, not past. I am sure he was a doper, but I do not know is he now.

Makes sense, thx,

 

[Benotti69]

Makes sense, thx,

Not really, when we know who he rode for, who he rides for now and how good anti doping is.

 

[red_flanders]

Not really, when we know who he rode for, who he rides for now and how good anti doping is.

I just mean that I get the reasoning whether or not I agree with it.

 

[red_flanders]

This poll is about as credible as the earth is flat. The "sample" is probably the most biased, cynical and partial as a sample could get. Polling the Clinic on who is not doping is like polling the mafia on the morality of loan sharking.

Unless you're interested in the views of the people who post here. It's not meant to be scientific. Certainly one cannot extrapolate the findings past this group. Those responding are a selected group.

While we're at it, the sample is self-selecting even within this group.

One could easily argue this group as a whole is also vastly more informed about cycling and doping than just about any group of fans. You call it cynical, I call it informed. For the most part.

 

[happychappy]

Just some fun

Right back at you