Contador on Eurosport

[Cycle Chic]

I couldnt quite believe that on British Eurosport we had about an hour run up to the Giro with Senor Contador. Isnt he banned for DOPING !!!!

.....and here we have an in depth interview which lets us see how he is spending his time during suspension.

Which other sport would ignore that this is a sportsman banned for doping ??? and yet Eurosport give hime prime spot for the 1st stage of the Giro.

Why is he different from any other rider serving a ban ??? its just more 'cloak and dagger' for the sport and Eurosport cozying up to Senor Contador.

and for ref. i like contador but this doesnt do anything for the sports reputation. If any joe bloggs switched on eurosport - they would say who's this guy then ? 'oh he's banned for doping'.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

I think it is a good thing that even the spanish hating anglo saxons understand that Contador is not really banned for doping, but for political issues...

 

[LaFlorecita]

An hour of Alberto?! Is there a link to that?

 

[Cycle Chic]

It was on Eurosport yesterday - A pre-GIRO talk with him. An Insiders Guide to the Giro by Contador.

 

[ChrisE]

An hour of Alberto?! Is there a link to that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ_fnYhI1HU

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Congratulations, you've managed to branch out with your Eurosport hate. This thread isn't about the commentary!

 

[ChrisE]

Congratulations, you've managed to branch out with your Eurosport hate. This thread isn't about the commentary!

OK, fill in "widget network" instead of Eurosport. Does that work for you?

Do you agree with the OP's opinion on whether Conta-bang-bang-doper be given a platform like this?

 

[Caruut]

Contador is banned from racing, not from appearing on television. If I thought he was the only one at it, I'd be annoyed. When I'm almost certain his nearest rivals are probably on a program almost the same as him, I just don't think it's right to start a kind of moral crusade against him. He is rightly banned from racing, and I think we ought to leave it at that.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Contador is banned from racing, not from appearing on television. If I thought he was the only one at it, I'd be annoyed. When I'm almost certain his nearest rivals are probably on a program almost the same as him, I just don't think it's right to start a kind of moral crusade against him. He is rightly banned from racing, and I think we ought to leave it at that.

Although I do not agree with the rest of your post, I do agree with the bolded.

 

[ChrisE]

Contador is banned from racing, not from appearing on television. If I thought he was the only one at it, I'd be annoyed. When I'm almost certain his nearest rivals are probably on a program almost the same as him, I just don't think it's right to start a kind of moral crusade against him. He is rightly banned from racing, and I think we ought to leave it at that.

Right, but the OP's rant was a little deeper than that. If the networks wish to promote the sport to get viewers, is putting somebody on suspension a platform the best way to do that?

 

[Caruut]

Right, but the OP's rant was a little deeper than that. If the networks wish to promote the sport to get viewers, is putting somebody on suspension a platform the best way to do that?

Commercially, probably not.

I just feel that vilifying dopers sends out a message that the crime is not doping itself, but getting caught. Contador got popped for a relatively minor drug, and in any case, the official line was that there was insufficient evidence to say that he intentionally doped.

 

[ChrisE]

Commercially, probably not.

I just feel that vilifying dopers sends out a message that the crime is not doping itself, but getting caught. Contador got popped for a relatively minor drug, and in any case, the official line was that there was insufficient evidence to say that he intentionally doped.

I don't follow....extrapolate your reasoning about villification onto any crime or rule breaking and you will see what I mean. Villifying Enron execs means getting caught was the problem and not the corruption?

I don't really care to go into the AFF details that have been talked to death on the AC threads. Somehow I think the casual viewer will not rationalize it out like you do. And, not putting AC on TV for an hour is not villifying him.

 

[LaFlorecita]

You people should get over it. ES already cut him out of the giro promo vids so that should make your hater's hearts grow big.

 

[The Hitch]

What, did he analyze all the stages? Such an analysis, regardless from whom, has been missing from es coverage in the past. im upset to have missed it.

 

[patricknd]

Commercially, probably not.

I just feel that vilifying dopers sends out a message that the crime is not doping itself, but getting caught. Contador got popped for a relatively minor drug, and in any case, the official line was that there was insufficient evidence to say that he intentionally doped.

I thought there was insufficient evidence to say that he didn't

 

[Nilsson]

Commercially, probably not.

I just feel that vilifying dopers sends out a message that the crime is not doping itself, but getting caught. Contador got popped for a relatively minor drug, and in any case, the official line was that there was insufficient evidence to say that he intentionally doped.

Commercially it's the opposite: it is a good idea. Contador is, if you like it or not, still a big gun and attracts loads of attention, either way. Those who support him, will of course like it, those who don't, will still watch (and apparently even open topics about it on some cycling forum, because they just saw something exciting). I haven't seen it myself, but if it's possible I'd probably try to watch it. Something I wouldn't do without a big name in the show...

 

[Caruut]

I thought there was insufficient evidence to say that he didn't

He provided insufficient evidence to explain how the clenbuterol entered his system, but the court specified that there was also insufficient evidence to say he was guilty of doping - more a cover-ourselves-legally than anything else, in my opinion.

I believe that top-level cycling is riddled with drugs. As such I personally find it hard to justify treating those who got caught any worse (beyond them rightly serving their ban) than those who haven't tested positive. I know that that's not a casual fan's perspective, but to be honest, I think that cycling worries too much about what casual fans think.

When I said "commercially" I mean for the image of the sport - for that particular ES broadcast it makes sense.

 

[dolophonic]

Doesn't bother me.. he probably knows a bit about riding GT's. Think he's done the Giro before ...

 

[roundabout]

Commercially, probably not.

I just feel that vilifying dopers sends out a message that the crime is not doping itself, but getting caught. Contador got popped for a relatively minor drug, and in any case, the official line was that there was insufficient evidence to say that he intentionally doped.

I don't understand, not having the Contador segment would be "vilifying" dopers?

 

[Nilsson]

When I said "commercially" I mean for the image of the sport - for that particular ES broadcast it makes sense.

Okay, I can agree with that. Although the image of cycling is a very complex issue.

(The image of) cycling is managed incredibly unprofessional, by opportunistic and weak authorities and individuals. There is no sport that damages itself so badly as cycling does, time after time, that hunts down its own heroes or let (in the idle hope of transparency and a better image, but accomplishing the exact opposite). There is no sport I can think of that handles its image that poorly, where individuals speak out if they like to about the 'dark sides' of the sport, gossip is out in the open and authorities are (willingly or not) cooperative to actually catch dopers, make stories and damage the sport they should manage and protect...

I, therefore, can very well understand your view on things, and why you find it hard to justify treating those who got caught any worse (beyond them rightly serving their ban) than those who haven't tested positive. I'd probably even bring that up a notch by thinking that getting caught (especially being a star) and make a big deal about it is very much cycling, and therefore it's indeed hard to justify treating those who get caught worse than those who haven't...

 

[Merckx index]

He isn’t banned from TV appearances, and I personally don’t care whether they interview him or not. As Hitch’s post exemplifies, a lot of people value his insights. But it's easy to come up with comparable examples of sanctioned riders who would not have been interviewed. DiLuca, for example, would not be interviewed, certainly not when he was suspended, though he won a Giro. Vino, winner of the 2006 Vuelta, but suspended in 2007, would not have been interviewed at that time. Would anyone have interviewed Floyd during the 2007 TDF? No way.

I think this is another example of how the CAS decision, though it was for two years, gave Bert some breaks. If he had been sanctioned for blood doping, for EPO, or even for clenbuterol under conditions when he couldn’t argue he didn’t take it for PE (IOW, not a tiny amount following a negative), I can’t imagine ES would have interviewed him. But officially, according to CAS, he accidentally took a contaminated supplement, so he’s not an intentional doper and can be interviewed.

So it’s a combination of two things, a) being the biggest name in the sport; and b) getting popped for what can be viewed as a technicality.

 

[hrotha]

But officially, according to CAS, he accidentally took a contaminated supplement, so he’s not an intentional doper and can be interviewed.

That's not what CAS said, now is it? They even pointed out they didn't necessarily believe that was the cause, just that all they needed to do to dismiss Contador's defense is prove that such a scenario was more likely than the one put forward by Contador.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I can’t imagine ES would have interviewed him. But officially, according to CAS, he accidentally took a contaminated supplement, so he’s not an intentional doper and can be interviewed.

So it’s a combination of two things, a) being the biggest name in the sport; and b) getting popped for what can be viewed as a technicality.

Autologous blooddoping is still quite hard to proof. The many plasticizers weren't enough proof.

Nevertheless we all enjoy when guys like Merckx come on tv for their insights on the race so why not a one time cheat? Only time will tell if Contador is one of the great or one of the biggest riding pharmaceuticals.

I like his attacking style though, but, when you are going to beat Cancellara in a TT I always get suspicious.

That's not what CAS said, now is it? They even pointed out they didn't necessarily believe that was the cause, just that all they needed to do to dismiss Contador's defense is prove that such a scenario was more likely than the one put forward by Contador.

Indeed, CAS did a sloppy job.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Autologous blooddoping is still quite hard to proof. The many plasticizers weren't enough proof.

Nevertheless we all enjoy when guys like Merckx come on tv for their insights on the race so why not a one time cheat? Only time will tell if Contador is one of the great or one of the biggest riding pharmaceuticals.

I like his attacking style though, but, when you are going to beat Cancellara in a TT I always get suspicious.
Indeed, CAS did a sloppy job.

Alberto will never become one of the greats because of this ban. That doesn't necesarilly mean that it's all doping you see. There is something in between.

 

[ElChingon]

What ever happened to the channel changer/selector? Don't like what's on change the channel.

Banned from racing in UCI World Tour races (there might be other specifics I have not bothered to read up on) not living or getting a word in in any media on any subject. Some people think he is in jail or placed in a box till his ban has expired.