• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Contador - last year - more risk ?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Yeah, anabolic steroids and hGH have many well-documented side effects. Most of them aren't life threatening but they could lower the quality of life significantly and I'm sure they could make users regret years of abuse if they develop some of these symptoms.
I wonder how much athletes know about the side effects or if they even want to know. Is education part of some sort of doping prevention program? Is that even a thing?
For example, if I were a young male athlete (I am neither male nor an athlete :p ) and I would find out that years of testosterone abuse could lead to me being unable to father children, I'd think twice about using it. Although, I guess many of these athletes don't think long term too much, but they might regret that in the future when they're retired.
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
I think the 'programs' are different.

Nibali's Giro kind of points to it. Whatever they are taking, they have less good days where they cant keep up with others but then come back and have 'form'. Aru and Nibali have shown that.

Contador might not have fully embarced the new 'methods', he talked of so many being skinny. He has not taken the super skinny route as others have. Dan Martin looks much thinner than previous years.
Contador looks super skinny at the Dauphine. He freaked me out during the TT.
 
Re:

Escarabajo said:
They don't care LaFlor. I don't even think that they want to know.
Yeah, I think that's it, they don't even want to know because they probably realize that once they know the gory details, they might not be so happy to use all that *** anymore.
But still I think sports' federations have a duty to educate young athletes about the risks, I don't know if that already happens.
 
Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
Benotti69 said:
I think the 'programs' are different.

Nibali's Giro kind of points to it. Whatever they are taking, they have less good days where they cant keep up with others but then come back and have 'form'. Aru and Nibali have shown that.

Contador might not have fully embarced the new 'methods', he talked of so many being skinny. He has not taken the super skinny route as others have. Dan Martin looks much thinner than previous years.
Contador looks super skinny at the Dauphine. He freaked me out during the TT.
He is really lean, his weight is not an issue and the TT also showed his shape is quite good. He just lacks that final bit of power to be able to successfully respond to attacks, you can see he has the turn of speed but he can't keep up those higher watts for a long enough time, so I guess that's what he'll be training in the next two weeks or so.
 
Oct 10, 2015
1,601
0
0
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Escarabajo said:
They don't care LaFlor. I don't even think that they want to know.
Yeah, I think that's it, they don't even want to know because they probably realize that once they know the gory details, they might not be so happy to use all that **** anymore.
But still I think sports' federations have a duty to educate young athletes about the risks, I don't know if that already happens.
I know some sports federations have some basic education with regards to the side effects of doping but it's window dressing at best, sports federations get funding from results and we all know the way to get results in pro sports is to dope so I can't see why they would ever put any real effort into a legitimate education program
 
Alberto has two choices:

1. Go light and lose to the train, Ulle style. Not that Ulle went light, but you see the point.
2. Go full genius, hope he doesn't get busted. And he'll win. I suspect that Nibali made that choice at the Giro, but he's Italian, in Italy. Can Bertie get away with it? In France?

Nairo: so funny how he flies under most radars.

The rest? They go light IMO. Dope safe. They need the sponsor. Avoid a scandal.

One on one, Contador is better than Froome IMO. But against a machine, he stands no chance.
 
Tonton said:
One on one, Contador is better than Froome IMO. But against a machine, he stands no chance.
This.
It was so obvious again yesterday. On the final climb, all GC contenders were on their own. Except Froome, he still had Landa and Henao for the majority of the climb.
I was thinking, can you imagine how exciting that stage would have been if not for the train? Man vs man, attacks galore, riders cracking all over the place. It's sad we rarely get to see that and that is mostly due to Sky.
And it's sad that riders like Alberto are forced to go full genius on the doping if they want to beat a 5-man machine on their own.
 
LaFlorecita said:
Tonton said:
One on one, Contador is better than Froome IMO. But against a machine, he stands no chance.
This.
It was so obvious again yesterday. On the final climb, all GC contenders were on their own. Except Froome, he still had Landa and Henao for the majority of the climb.
I was thinking, can you imagine how exciting that stage would have been if not for the train? Man vs man, attacks galore, riders cracking all over the place. It's sad we rarely get to see that and that is mostly due to Sky.
And it's sad that riders like Alberto are forced to go full genius on the doping if they want to beat a 5-man machine on their own.
It's the attacks galore that are killing Contador. Froome has worked him out; he doesn't always need to follow immediately, because he knows Contador can't sustain it and will blow up.
 
DFA123 said:
LaFlorecita said:
Tonton said:
One on one, Contador is better than Froome IMO. But against a machine, he stands no chance.
This.
It was so obvious again yesterday. On the final climb, all GC contenders were on their own. Except Froome, he still had Landa and Henao for the majority of the climb.
I was thinking, can you imagine how exciting that stage would have been if not for the train? Man vs man, attacks galore, riders cracking all over the place. It's sad we rarely get to see that and that is mostly due to Sky.
And it's sad that riders like Alberto are forced to go full genius on the doping if they want to beat a 5-man machine on their own.
It's the attacks galore that are killing Contador. Froome has worked him out; he doesn't always need to follow immediately, because he knows Contador can't sustain it and will blow up.
I did not mean attacks just by Contador. If there's no sky train to set the pace, many riders will try to attack, forcing Froome to defend his lead. This opens the door for 1 or 2 of the attackers to be successful and take time.
 
Mar 14, 2016
2,400
1
0
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Yeah, anabolic steroids and hGH have many well-documented side effects. Most of them aren't life threatening but they could lower the quality of life significantly and I'm sure they could make users regret years of abuse if they develop some of these symptoms.
Careful there. Anabolic steroids are listed as "probably carcinogenic to humans" and taking HGH has been linked to tumours.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304179704579459290223091978
 
Aug 31, 2012
5,221
0
0
Tonton said:
One on one, Contador is better than Froome IMO. But against a machine, he stands no chance.
In terms of non-reliance on a team, I agree, but physically, mano a mano, Froome has dealt Contador a large number of humiliating blows. Contador's performance curve over 3 weeks might deteriorate less than Froome's and thus eventually cross it, but Froome's best seems to be beyond Contador's.
 
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
LaFlorecita said:
Yeah, anabolic steroids and hGH have many well-documented side effects. Most of them aren't life threatening but they could lower the quality of life significantly and I'm sure they could make users regret years of abuse if they develop some of these symptoms.
Careful there. Anabolic steroids are listed as "probably carcinogenic to humans" and taking HGH has been linked to tumours.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304179704579459290223091978
I wrote that those substances have many well-documented side effects, i.e. no vague links or whatever but solid evidence that those substances can cause those effects.
And I also wrote that *many* aren't life threatening, not that all of them aren't. :)
 
Feb 6, 2016
953
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
There could even be long term benefits. It's difficult to see how riding a GT while doping for recovery - micro-dosing EPO, HGH and test - is going to do more damage to the health than riding clean. On the contrary, it will help to control things like excessive cortisol and inflammation which can cause long term health issues. Basically just replenishing key hormones to the natural level. Similarly, taking a BB during training or racing could have long term health benefits. Like you said, it's certainly not black and white that all doping causes health damage.
He is, he says, responsible for saving the health – and even the lives – of countless riders who would have been driven beyond their physiological limits by the demands that top-class racing places on them.
-Eufemiano Fuentes
 
Re: Re:

Cannibal72 said:
DFA123 said:
There could even be long term benefits. It's difficult to see how riding a GT while doping for recovery - micro-dosing EPO, HGH and test - is going to do more damage to the health than riding clean. On the contrary, it will help to control things like excessive cortisol and inflammation which can cause long term health issues. Basically just replenishing key hormones to the natural level. Similarly, taking a BB during training or racing could have long term health benefits. Like you said, it's certainly not black and white that all doping causes health damage.
He is, he says, responsible for saving the health – and even the lives – of countless riders who would have been driven beyond their physiological limits by the demands that top-class racing places on them.
-Eufemiano Fuentes
Yeah but they are two different things, I get that it might help the athletes deal with the very demanding efforts, f.ex. it might protect the heart and vascular system, but those benefits don't nullify the potential side effects.
Doping is a double-edged sword.
 
SeriousSam said:
Tonton said:
One on one, Contador is better than Froome IMO. But against a machine, he stands no chance.
In terms of non-reliance on a team, I agree, but physically, mano a mano, Froome has dealt Contador a large number of humiliating blows. Contador's performance curve over 3 weeks might deteriorate less than Froome's and thus eventually cross it, but Froome's best seems to be beyond Contador's.
I agree. So Oleg needs to get busy, spend some cash if need be, make alliances, the art of the deal...like the Russian Donald Trump that he is or wants to be. Talk to Movistar. Turn the TdF into a Vuelta of (not so) old ;) .
 
Aug 12, 2012
3,991
0
0
He is always saying he is at his best, better than ever, 2014 his best year, now he is like 2014, that he didnt lose nor a 1 % of his best shape ever now. He is getting his cimbing records,.. but the fact is that he climbs year by year Arrate 40 s-1 min slower than in 2009, that he won almost every 1 week race he rode, not just to win, but with some exceptions, smash everybody in the ITt and in the mountain finishmbeating in flat `prologues people as Toy Martin, Wiggins, etc...and, despite the change of the wind that helped him, a flat ITT in le Tour to Cancellara...

After his santion is a good rider able to win some races, with more problem than before,to be one of the best of the history in short and hilly ITTs...he needto use strategy, to ask for people to other team, as we see in Fuente dé, but he won that vuielta, he won another Vuelta, he was the best pre`pared rider and he wa lucky with the circuntances, but he won Vuelta in 2014, and he won the Giro, becouse atana didnt bet or risk to win, but he won...but he has never be on the podium again ion le Tour, againt the best riders in toop hape, and now he isnot very good in all kind of ITTs, (he was very good in the Giro, but it was an exception, ad there Porteand uran were with problem, Froome, Wiggins, cancellara, Tony Martin,.. want there.. but yes, good one...and now he is up always in one week races, but he need a good rute or luck to win.

So, he is far those numbers of 2009, and he ha worse results.

But he aid he is the ameorevenn better,

he just try to justifique he never doped.. and he is a rider that as most of riers before 2008 doped usually, and in the transitional era, when doping decreae a lot, he still doped, lees than before, but more than the average, when lot of people already didnt dope) He was caucth and, the contrary to others who lest cycling or his reult tarting to be much worse, without doping he was still a very good rider, but not the same.

Other people were lacking best result for that reason and improved his results.

some people aid here he i still doping.
i think his improvement after 2014 is not for doping, he just starting to do what people do in the new era, and he improved his result, becouse he is a very good rider, not the best, but a very good one.

He won the Vuelta 2012 becouse he was fresher than others, and for strategy, but Purito climbed better, and other riders were beter in la Bola del mundo.
His 2013 wanst so bad, he was 4th in le Tour, but compared his trayectory very bad...and later he imprioved becouehe starting to note the new metodologhy, that is not doping.

Could I rule out he is doping. I would say yes, but in a team a Tinkoff with Riis over there and his past., and with those study of cycling saying still 30 % of cycling dope some way.... who knows?, , but I am sure if he is ussing he has a minimum margin, so the improvement is very small. I hope no and I think no.

The same I think of his rivals.

if you ask me about Gasparotto, I would say, probaby yes...with something minimal, but probably...but he is out of World Tour teams.
 
Aug 12, 2012
3,991
0
0
SeriousSam said:
Tonton said:
One on one, Contador is better than Froome IMO. But against a machine, he stands no chance.
In terms of non-reliance on a team, I agree, but physically, mano a mano, Froome has dealt Contador a large number of humiliating blows. Contador's performance curve over 3 weeks might deteriorate less than Froome's and thus eventually cross it, but Froome's best seems to be beyond Contador's.

One to one, and phisically speaking, Contador is better than Froome, with a little difference, in an ITT as this prologue of Dauphiné. In the rest no.

Anyway, I admit techonogically, oval rings, and other kind of things, froome has an advantage, but a legal advantage that need sometime too much work, and I understand SKy ha a big difference with caja rural in resources, but with Tinkoff that difference is small, it i mainly his merit.

As well I admit, Froome use to have better team than Contador. But anyway that stage in Pyrinees when he was almost without team y bad luck, he managed alone against everybody very well.
 
If the oval chain-ring was that big of an advantage, everyone would get it, and then it's no advantage. So is it an advantage?

Neutralizing Sky is the key for both Bertie and Nairito. USPS anyone? You can't let Sky dictate the race. Or you lose.
 
LaFlorecita said:
Tonton said:
One on one, Contador is better than Froome IMO. But against a machine, he stands no chance.
This.
It was so obvious again yesterday. On the final climb, all GC contenders were on their own. Except Froome, he still had Landa and Henao for the majority of the climb.
I was thinking, can you imagine how exciting that stage would have been if not for the train? Man vs man, attacks galore, riders cracking all over the place. It's sad we rarely get to see that and that is mostly due to Sky.
And it's sad that riders like Alberto are forced to go full genius on the doping if they want to beat a 5-man machine on their own.
It is sad and very annoying. Just absolutely sucks all the life out of the race. Basically the only way around it is to bracket the Tour + warm up stage races, and enjoy the rest of the calendar. The Giro and Vuelta have often delivered some exciting and unpredictable mountain stages. I've learned: just don't bother with the tdf. Murdoch and Sky own it now. Let 'em have it.
 
Aug 12, 2012
3,991
0
0
Tonton said:
If the oval chain-ring was that big of an advantage, everyone would get it, and then it's no advantage. So is it an advantage?

Neutralizing Sky is the key for both Bertie and Nairito. USPS anyone? You can't let Sky dictate the race. Or you lose.

Lot of people think like that, but the reallity is that no.

I rode a day with an ex euskaltel rider, he was riding till 2 years ago in pro and he told me that Euskaltel prove and they didnt see any benefits, but at the begining you dont get that benefit, it needs an specifi and no easyl work, not all the oval rings works, and there are some people that dondnt adapt to that. i remerber Froome saying he cant understand how not everybiody use the oval rings.

Some conclusions said has more benefit for tall riders. and there are situations where there is no difference and in others there are a little. But what is sure you have to change you way to ride an train, an lot of riders dont adapt to that or to do that for very little beneffit
 
Metabolol said:
If Contador retires after next year (as he has stated) will it allow him to take more risks in regards to the bio passport? Considering that there seems to be a time lag between suspicious passport values (kreuziger case for example) and UCI taking action (when they actually do so) will he really push things to the limit before he says goodbye?
You mean like old man Horner winning the Vuelta at nearly 42 years of age then fading into deserved obscurity? You might be onto something. With Contador time will tell but if you are right it would be a damning indictment on how the UCI is administering the bio passport.
 
Aug 31, 2012
5,221
0
0
To resume the discussion from a while ago; with another chance to win the Tour gone (and it didn't look likely he'd win even before the crashes) and Contador's age, it's close to settled now:

His reign as king of the GT racers was remarkably short, with Froome the top rider ever since the Vuelta in 2011.

Though he said he'd continue 2 more years, I think he'll reevaluate that after getting clobbered in yet another Tour.
 
SeriousSam said:
To resume the discussion from a while ago; with another chance to win the Tour gone (and it didn't look likely he'd win even before the crashes) and Contador's age, it's close to settled now:

His reign as king of the GT racers was remarkably short, with Froome the top rider ever since the Vuelta in 2011.

Though he said he'd continue 2 more years, I think he'll reevaluate that after getting clobbered in yet another Tour.
Or, he won't want to go out this way and sign on for another last try. Except his new team will want to sign him for two years, not one so he'll have to throw in two last try's at glory... :D
 
Think the dude is either a masochist (no matter the pain/injuries he'll just keep on riding because he enjoys it), or he feels too much responsibility toward the sponsor to quit now. Could be both, actually.

Either way, chapeau Contador!

At least I can tell which Tinkoff rider he is now, he's the one wearing the white sleeve on his right arm. (Used to be he was the one wearing the black shoes, but that is not a given at the mo seeing as he sometimes wears the full Tinkoff outfit color-scheme. That trickster!)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS