I think Vaughters really wants to sign Contador:

[Anonymous]

Remember it well, the point was more the nature of the attacks comparing the two tours, it wasn't just blowing the field away at will. The Giro last year several riders were attacking each other every day including Ricco. Even Menchov was putting in some digs. The impact of Riccos attacks in the Giro were nothing like his tour attacks. The only one riding in the Giro that was riding away from the field at will was Sella who was obviously juiced and rode like Ricco did in last years tour. How good was Sella pre Giro and doping? All the time Sella lost was on flat stages not in the mountains too. I hope when the retrospective Giro tests come out it clears up some of this

The TT in Annecy this year could not be described as long and flat either. There was a reasonable climb on it and in this section was where he made his mark. I did notice quite a difference in riding style between 2007 and 2009 and he is definitely much more aero and may be more consistent (which is harder to pick up by sight).
In terms of performance it was pretty exceptional but the gaps in that TT were not big and he wasn't that far ahead of Christophe Moreau who is nearly 40 so again I dont believe his performance was superhuman.

Contador seems unreasonably targeted for suspicion

I'm betting that Cancellara has a different opinion.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I'm betting that Cancellara has a different opinion.

Totally. Cancellara was reportedly furious that the camera crew motorbikes gave Contador an advantage.

 

[Escarabajo]

From what I have read, the pros and cons of Puerto go something like this:

Contador, Davis and one other rider were in the first group of 3 cleared by the Spanish authorities, suggesting evidence against him is weak. However, Davis offered his DNA to clear his name straight away (his offer was initially declined) ....Contador refused to offer, but then later said something like he would give samples to any proper authorities....after the Spanish court had ruled that the blood bags could not be released to the UCI.
Fuentes has indicated Contador wasn't one of the dopers, but is a ringing endorsement from Fuentes a good thing or not?
Valverde and Ulrich were perused more strongly by other uthorities....not the UCI....so there is reason to question whether the UCI is doing it's job. While the UCI is seen to unfair and ineffective the rumors and conspiracy theories will continue....
Did the Spanish authorities decide to protect their local 'come back from the brink of death' sporting hero?
Is the whole anti-doping system so corrupt Contador is avoiding giving a sample for fear of being set up?

But if we conclude that he was doping then, must we conclude that he is definitely doping now? Do you have an opinion on this last question? I like the way you try and weigh up different bits of information to reach your view....

Good Summary. Him giving his DNA is a moot point because the Spanish authorities don't want to pursue any punishment for any of their riders (Or maybe can't based on Legal terms).

Without the Operacion Puerto incident he is very suspicious, in my mind, based on the Power numbers. And remember that he has been beating or climbing as well as known dopers as Rassmussen, Rico, Di luca.

Even if Andrew Coggan or Jonathan Vaughters think that he is clean, I am positioned more on the doping side of the balance. Of course, my opinion is only worth 2 cents compared to JV and ACoggan.

 

[Anonymous]

Totally. Cancellara was reportedly furious that the camera crew motorbikes gave Contador an advantage.

Yeah. That explains it.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I am positioned more on the doping side of the balance.

For the record, I actually agree with you that the balance of probabilities is on the doping side. I just think the possibility that he and other riders are riding clean is large enough it shouldn't be ignored.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

For the record, I actually agree with you that the balance of probabilities is on the doping side. I just think the possibility that he and other riders are riding clean is large enough it shouldn't be ignored.

I have always had my suspicions of Contador - from being one of Sainzs proteges to the AC on the Puerto documents and his Tour performance in 2007 where he was the only climber to match Rasmussen.

This year however I was very impressed with the information and knowledge of both "Escarabajo" & "I like Cycling in July". Their unbiased analysis of the data - even though it is limited - again would suggest that Contadors figures look to be above the threshold of what can be achieved naturally.

This is in contrast to Wiggins - who remains just inside the threshold.

 

[131313]

This year however I was very impressed with the information and knowledge of both "Escarabajo" & "I like Cycling in July". Their unbiased analysis of the data - even though it is limited - again would suggest that Contadors figures look to be above the threshold of what can be achieved naturally.

I have my suspicions about Contador as well, for many of the same reasons as you, but this just simply isn't true. While I don't want to take his words out of context, I bet that Ross Tucker would reach the same conclusion.

Unfortunately, people seem to insist on making the very foggy 'data' tell more than they really do.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have my suspicions about Contador as well, for many of the same reasons as you, but this just simply isn't true. While I don't want to take his words out of context, I bet that Ross Tucker would reach the same conclusion.

Unfortunately, people seem to insist on making the very foggy 'data' tell more than they really do.

Firstly - I have no idea who Ross Tucker is, I did wiki him but...

The reason I mentioned the posters "Escarabajos" & "IWCIJ" take on the figures is they have tried to make conclusions on the data and have tried to present their findings with the objective of giving every favour to the riders.

Yes- analysing figures is never easy - so unless you have the PowerTaps (which neither had) then it is open to debate - but for me it is slightly on the high side.

 

[cyclingmad]

reasonable doubt

Firstly - I have no idea who Ross Tucker is, I did wiki him but...

The reason I mentioned the posters "Escarabajos" & "IWCIJ" take on the figures is they have tried to make conclusions on the data and have tried to present their findings with the objective of giving every favour to the riders.

Yes- analysing figures is never easy - so unless you have the PowerTaps (which neither had) then it is open to debate - but for me it is slightly on the high side.

Trying to estimate power from the course profile is difficult enough and then convert that to a VO2 even worse. When it was attempted inappropriate estimates like 90% of V02 for a 15 min effort are so obviously bad the numbers look terrible. Taking an estimate from another rider using a power meter may provide a better estimate of power than needing to calculate variance from distance, wind, surface cornering etc.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/2009-tour-de-france-files.aspx

The analysis you mention from some of the other threads seem well presented. Great athletes are always hard to explain using scientific studies and assumptions. Science is forever being updated and sporting performance has always been difficult to explain scientifically.

Contador seems slightly ahead of where many would consider possible naturally. Eddy Mercx dominated by far greater margin in his wins. It is worth giving the benefit of the doubt. He is not in fact that far ahead of riders like Andy Schleck. Margins are small and quite like races of the pre doping era.

The Opercion Puerto wasn't well managed so being given legal advice not to provide a sample or otherwise is probably good advice.
If Contador did a VO2 max test it would prove nothing on its on. My own VO2 is pretty close to most pro riders but my performance level is substantially slower.

Just seems when each case against him is presented there are obvious flaws. When a neutral approach is taken like Escarabajos it seems some possibility of it being too good to be true but not necessarily that it is. With the amount of doubt in the evidence against him wouldn't it be better to believe in him. What can a rider now do if he is exceptional without being slated as a doper

 

[Digger]

Trying to estimate power from the course profile is difficult enough and then convert that to a VO2 even worse. When it was attempted inappropriate estimates like 90% of V02 for a 15 min effort are so obviously bad the numbers look terrible. Taking an estimate from another rider using a power meter may provide a better estimate of power than needing to calculate variance from distance, wind, surface cornering etc.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/2009-tour-de-france-files.aspx

The analysis you mention from some of the other threads seem well presented. Great athletes are always hard to explain using scientific studies and assumptions. Science is forever being updated and sporting performance has always been difficult to explain scientifically.

Contador seems slightly ahead of where many would consider possible naturally. Eddy Mercx dominated by far greater margin in his wins. It is worth giving the benefit of the doubt. He is not in fact that far ahead of riders like Andy Schleck. Margins are small and quite like races of the pre doping era.

The Opercion Puerto wasn't well managed so being given legal advice not to provide a sample or otherwise is probably good advice.
If Contador did a VO2 max test it would prove nothing on its on. My own VO2 is pretty close to most pro riders but my performance level is substantially slower.

Just seems when each case against him is presented there are obvious flaws. When a neutral approach is taken like Escarabajos it seems some possibility of it being too good to be true but not necessarily that it is. With the amount of doubt in the evidence against him wouldn't it be better to believe in him. What can a rider now do if he is exceptional without being slated as a doper

DNA samples can be inaccurate alright.
The fact remains that he is beating known dopers - and not just riders who have taken corticoids, but riders who have blood doped and doped with CERA.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Trying to estimate power from the course profile is difficult enough and then convert that to a VO2 even worse. When it was attempted inappropriate estimates like 90% of V02 for a 15 min effort are so obviously bad the numbers look terrible. Taking an estimate from another rider using a power meter may provide a better estimate of power than needing to calculate variance from distance, wind, surface cornering etc.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/2009-tour-de-france-files.aspx

The analysis you mention from some of the other threads seem well presented. Great athletes are always hard to explain using scientific studies and assumptions. Science is forever being updated and sporting performance has always been difficult to explain scientifically.

Contador seems slightly ahead of where many would consider possible naturally. Eddy Mercx dominated by far greater margin in his wins. It is worth giving the benefit of the doubt. He is not in fact that far ahead of riders like Andy Schleck. Margins are small and quite like races of the pre doping era.

The Opercion Puerto wasn't well managed so being given legal advice not to provide a sample or otherwise is probably good advice.
If Contador did a VO2 max test it would prove nothing on its on. My own VO2 is pretty close to most pro riders but my performance level is substantially slower.

Just seems when each case against him is presented there are obvious flaws. When a neutral approach is taken like Escarabajos it seems some possibility of it being too good to be true but not necessarily that it is. With the amount of doubt in the evidence against him wouldn't it be better to believe in him. What can a rider now do if he is exceptional without being slated as a doper

For Contador -pretty simple, submit to a DNA test. Its either in the bags or not in the bags.

As for other riders - they could follow Wiggins approach and release their values or hire Don Catlin and keep him around for a bit longer than the press conference.

You mentioned Andy Schlek - well his brother likes to give gynecologists thousands of Euro for training purposes.

While you can legitimately argue that there is a case for 'reasonable doubt' about the data used to come about the figures there is no doubt about the UCI in their inability or desire to pursue suspicious behavior.

 

[acoggan]

Even if Andrew Coggan...think that he is clean

Please get/keep your facts straight: I have not formed, much less publically expressed, any opinion on this issue.

 

[Escarabajo]

Please get/keep your facts straight: I have not formed, much less publically expressed, any opinion on this issue.

Fair enough. I apologize that I miss wrote you.

Now, you stated that riding over 6.42 W/kg for over 90% of the probabilities is not necessarily a red flag. I disagree with you on this. My view is not based on physiology, but on statistics. Unless someone like you or other experts prove to me that humans can evolve over short periods of time on these issues, until then I’ll find difficult to believe that today's athletes like Contador can be putting numbers that is the past (Pre 90's) was impossible to do.

 

[luckyboy]

How do you believe he managed to beat two guys at last year's Giro who we know for a fact were doped?

We know for a fact that Schumacher was doped in last year's Tour, so that means that the 24 riders who finished in front of him were too?

 

[Digger]

We know for a fact that Schumacher was doped in last year's Tour, so that means that the 24 riders who finished in front of him were too?

How many stages did he win again?
Any crashes by him?
Did he wear yellow?
How many break aways was he in, day after day?

The point is that he was riding mainly for stage wins, due to the desire of getting a contract this year. GC was not his goal.

But in my opinion, a very large percentage were doping, who finished ahead of him, as evidenced by the leaked reports about Saxo and Columbia riders using CERA.

In my opinion, at the very top, where there isn't much separating the big names, it is unlikely that a guy using CERA or blood doping, will not beat a clean rider over a three week Tour. And the word 'unlikely' is being kind.

 

[peloton]

Le Monde aren't exactly a tabloid. They don't get much wrong. AC didn't get them to refute this.
Secondly, who do you think AC alongside JJ is? Just a coincidence I guess. So he was on the LS team, under one of the dirtiest DS in the history of the sport, even worse than JB in my opinion, most of his team mates are named in the Puerto files, his initials are on the files, and you don't believe this is enough. Le monde, one of the most high brow newspapers in the world doesn't go around making these kind of statements. Le Monde have also seen the files in question.
Your thoughts on Werner Franke and what he has seen? He says he knows the drugs AC was taking.

And finally, do you honestly think there's a genuine effort being made by the Spanish authorities to get to the bottom of this case? No cover up evident at all? I suppose Valv.piti is also innocent. Of all the aliases we've wondered about, not one has turned out to be wrong. And alot of them were far more difficult to piece together than AC, alongside a whole bunch of LS initials.

I never said Le Monde was a tabloid, just that what they print/write ain't always true.

http://www.velonews.com/article/12964

You are talking about the same Werner Franke who had to pay money to Ullrich?
I applaud his mission, but surely Franke would have given the evidence he had on Contador's doping by now, don't you think?

I consider LA innocent until proven guilty, I will do the same with Contador, like with any other rider/athlete.

 

[acoggan]

you stated that riding over 6.42 W/kg for over 90% of the probabilities is not necessarily a red flag. I disagree with you on this. My view is not based on physiology, but on statistics.

I don't know if you realize it, but you contradicted yourself in what you wrote above.

While I am at it: your point-of-view is (IIRC, anyway) based on the incorrect assumption that no one can maintain >90% of VO2max for the duration of the Verbeir climb.

 

[Escarabajo]

I don't know if you realize it, but you contradicted yourself in what you wrote above.

While I am at it: your point-of-view is (IIRC, anyway) based on the incorrect assumption that no one can maintain >90% of VO2max for the duration of the Verbeir climb.

Now I am confused.

I did not try to state that an athlete can maintain >90% of VO2 max over the Verbier. I don't know that. You do. My quote is referring that there is at least 90% probability of the chance of occurrence that all of Contador's power numbers are above 6.42 W/kg. I am not talking about VO2 max. I have been trying to get information about the maximum capacities for a human to maintain this power for at least 20 minutes. You pointed me to a table where I saw a max limit of 6.4 W/kg. The Science of The Sport used a number of 6 W/kg for 20 minutes. JV used 6.2 W/kg. Maybe these numbers are well related to a VO2 max value, but I don't want to touch a topic that is beyond my reach. I am only using numbers from other sources and old performances from other riders. Having said that 6.42 W/kg is on the high side. If we pick the most likely number from my simulation I get 6.7 Watts/kg. It makes it even worse. Maybe you can relate this number to a VO2 max value but I don't know which one that would be.

Now, having said that, can you help me out and tell me what the VO2 max would be for a 6.42 W/kg for Contador?

 

[acoggan]

Now I am confused.

I did not try to state that an athlete can maintain >90% of VO2 max over the Verbier. I don't know that. You do. My quote is referring that there is at least 90% probability of the chance of occurrence that all of Contador's power numbers are above 6.42 W/kg. I am not talking about VO2 max. I have been trying to get information about the maximum capacities for a human to maintain this power for at least 20 minutes. You pointed me to a table where I saw a max limit of 6.4 W/kg. The Science of The Sport used a number of 6 W/kg for 20 minutes. JV used 6.2 W/kg. Maybe these numbers are well related to a VO2 max value, but I don't want to touch a topic that is beyond my reach. I am only using numbers from other sources and old performances from other riders. Having said that 6.42 W/kg is on the high side. If we pick the most likely number from my simulation I get 6.7 Watts/kg. It makes it even worse. Maybe you can relate this number to a VO2 max value but I don't know which one that would be.

Now, having said that, can you help me out and tell me what the VO2 max would be for a 6.42 W/kg for Contador?

Re. the contradiction: you can't speak of probabilities and use the logical term "necessarily" at the same time.

Re. your question: the answer to it depends not only upon the percentage of VO2max that he was able to sustain, but also upon his efficiency and (to a lesser extent) anaerobic capacity.

(BTW, the guy who put out the 6.42 W/kg for 1 h was Chris Boardman, who had a VO2max of 90 mL/min/kg.)

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

..... My quote is referring that there is at least 90% probability of the chance of occurrence that all of Contador's power numbers are above 6.42 W/kg..... I have been trying to get information about the maximum capacities for a human to maintain this power for at least 20 minutes. You pointed me to a table where I saw a max limit of 6.4 W/kg. The Science of The Sport used a number of 6 W/kg for 20 minutes. JV used 6.2 W/kg..... Having said that 6.42 W/kg is on the high side. If we pick the most likely number from my simulation I get 6.7 Watts/kg....

Firstly a small point, the bold text is not consistent with my understanding of JV's anecdotal data for 20min. I will let you re-read the post and make up your own mind though. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=73896#post73896

Secondly, I thought the range of 5.69W/kg - 6.40W/kg max was for FT power, and that FT power is more similar to a 1hr TT than a 20min effort? So I think a bit more anaerobic effort needs to be added in. If I look at your initial estimate of 30W average anaerobic contribution for 20min, about 7% needs to be added. If it look at the examples of all rounder / TT specialists, and make an ugly linear interpolation on a sample of 2 non-pro riders, it's less than 2%. (Hopefully, that last sentence convinced anyone reading that I'm just playing with the numbers here - don't take the exact numbers too seriously!!)

So, if I then adjust the FT power range for pros, the estimated 20min power is 5.8W/kg - 6.5W/kg (1.5%) and 6.1W/kg - 6.8W/kg (7%). For me, based on the very limited information available, there's enough overlap with your estimated range of 6.26W/kg - 7.23W/kg, that the possibility the ride could have been done by a clean rider is too large to be neglected.....unless of course you have reason to believe the FT power range of 5.69W/kg - 6.40W/kg is based on contaminated data, and I'm comparing rotten apples with rotten oranges.....which is what I suspect you meant by the following comment:

Unless ...experts prove to me that humans can evolve over short periods of time on these issues, until then I’ll find difficult to believe that today's athletes like Contador can be putting numbers that is the past (Pre 90's) was impossible to do.

So maybe it all comes down to beliefs in the end. I had hoped that it was possible to get past beliefs and come up with some sensible probability estimates, but there seems to be too many currently unanswered questions eg:
Were the riders with the FT power range of 5.69W/kg - 6.40W/kg max clean?
Is it possible to improve cycling efficiency after all, and if so how?

Even if the pre 90s data were measured robustly, and the Science of Sport estimated 20min power of 6W/kg max was based on data from sufficient international pros, the above questions still remain....Oh well, on the bright side it was interesting thinking it through....

 

[Galic Ho]

How did CONI nail Valverde?

2008 TDF the stage into Prato Nevoso that Simon Gerrans won. Valverde was one of the randoms for doping controls. Apparently CONI accessed the blood because the controls took place on Italian soil. How they got acess to the Piti sample is beyond me. I've never heard an explanation, unless they had access to dna from the various blood bags when Scarponi and Basso were busted.

Secondly, who do you think AC alongside JJ is? Just a coincidence I guess.

Jorg Jaschke. Simple as that.

And finally, do you honestly think there's a genuine effort being made by the Spanish authorities to get to the bottom of this case? No cover up evident at all? I suppose Valv.piti is also innocent. Of all the aliases we've wondered about, not one has turned out to be wrong. And alot of them were far more difficult to piece together than AC, alongside a whole bunch of LS initials.

Serrano the judge behind Puerto had his hands tied by the law. The original rider who blabbed in 2004, Jesús Manzano rode for Kelme. Eufemiano Fuentes was Kelme's team doctor. We all know what happened after. The Spanish minister for sport wanted the issue dealt with. Apparently so did Sammaranch the IOC head. Serrano stated that the files could not be turned over to investigate sporting fraud because the original investigation by the Guardia Civil centred around erroneous health practices and not sporting fraud, particularly from the team doctors, such as Fuentes, Walter Virú the doctor before Fuentes and Alfredo Córdova. Their offices were raided and we now know they found 99 blood bags and a black list.

Since the puerto investigation was not about sporting fraud the court has withheld the information. Legally they can do this. Lucky for the pro cyclists, tennis players and footballers. Given this info, what amazes me is that CONI got access to the Piti sample and charged Valverde. Technically Valverde is correct in his assertion they had no legal right to charge him given Serrano's ruling and Spanish law. This is part of the reason why I don't think he'll be banned globally. He'll be discouraged from riding in some nations but not banned.

 

[cyclingmad]

statistics

Now I am confused.

I did not try to state that an athlete can maintain >90% of VO2 max over the Verbier. I don't know that. You do. My quote is referring that there is at least 90% probability of the chance of occurrence that all of Contador's power numbers are above 6.42 W/kg. I am not talking about VO2 max. I have been trying to get information about the maximum capacities for a human to maintain this power for at least 20 minutes. You pointed me to a table where I saw a max limit of 6.4 W/kg. The Science of The Sport used a number of 6 W/kg for 20 minutes. JV used 6.2 W/kg. Maybe these numbers are well related to a VO2 max value, but I don't want to touch a topic that is beyond my reach. I am only using numbers from other sources and old performances from other riders. Having said that 6.42 W/kg is on the high side. If we pick the most likely number from my simulation I get 6.7 Watts/kg. It makes it even worse. Maybe you can relate this number to a VO2 max value but I don't know which one that would be.

Now, having said that, can you help me out and tell me what the VO2 max would be for a 6.42 W/kg for Contador?

The analysis you provide is really good because it does show the margin of error and likely range of power output. There are a few points to consider when looking at these statistics and probabilities.
Great athletes can never be explained statistically. Eddy Mercx is way ahead of what should be possible statistically for example. What Alberto Contador is achieving is no where near as out of range as Eddy Mercx.

Sport doesn't follow a linear progression in improvements. Athletics and the mile is an example as is the 100 meters which has been mentioned in the forums cycling. The hour progression in Cycling improvement is not linear

There is no limit to maximum human potential.
Years ago I did some statistical studies to try and find some patterns and limits to records and progression of these using a 100 year timeframe of recorded data. I couldn't find any limits or a correlation in improvements. I couldn't find anyone else performing a study that draws that conclusion. If someone has this information I am very keen to see it.
Most studies have a number of disclaimers in drawing a definitive limit/correlation

Athletes perform differently in tests to what they do out riding and very elite athlete samples in a lab are difficult to obtain increasing the error in the test.

For the benefit of the sport I believe an athlete should be given the benefit of unless there is strong direct evidence of doping not just great performances.

Public information indicating impossible performances by Contador like the Vayer article use really bad assumptions like 90% of VO2 max power that just riding with a HR monitor or Powertap will tell you is a bad assumption for a 15 min climb. The relationship to VO2 conclusion is also bad as it has not been proven that this relationship exists

Studies showing a V02 to performance relationship always say that there is high variance in results so it is difficult to draw a conclusion that a performance must require a V02 that has never been seen.

Weight allows much faster acceleration and the fact that he has very strong Anaerobic capacity. That is one reason he performs very well in prologues like Paris Nice or London 2007 but not as well in longer TTs example 2007 in Angoleme. His bike position while Time Trialing is comparable to the best TT riders in the peloton so loses no time in the TTs.

The connection with bad doping practices of the past is suspicious but many riders have cleaned up he may have done the same.

 

[Digger]

The analysis you provide is really good because it does show the margin of error and likely range of power output. There are a few points to consider when looking at these statistics and probabilities.
Great athletes can never be explained statistically. Eddy Mercx is way ahead of what should be possible statistically for example. What Alberto Contador is achieving is no where near as out of range as Eddy Mercx.

Sport doesn't follow a linear progression in improvements. Athletics and the mile is an example as is the 100 meters which has been mentioned in the forums cycling. The hour progression in Cycling improvement is not linear

There is no limit to maximum human potential.
Years ago I did some statistical studies to try and find some patterns and limits to records and progression of these using a 100 year timeframe of recorded data. I couldn't find any limits or a correlation in improvements. I couldn't find anyone else performing a study that draws that conclusion. If someone has this information I am very keen to see it.
Most studies have a number of disclaimers in drawing a definitive limit/correlation

Athletes perform differently in tests to what they do out riding and very elite athlete samples in a lab are difficult to obtain increasing the error in the test.

For the benefit of the sport I believe an athlete should be given the benefit of unless there is strong direct evidence of doping not just great performances.

Public information indicating impossible performances by Contador like the Vayer article use really bad assumptions like 90% of VO2 max power that just riding with a HR monitor or Powertap will tell you is a bad assumption for a 15 min climb. The relationship to VO2 conclusion is also bad as it has not been proven that this relationship exists

Studies showing a V02 to performance relationship always say that there is high variance in results so it is difficult to draw a conclusion that a performance must require a V02 that has never been seen.

Weight allows much faster acceleration and the fact that he has very strong Anaerobic capacity. That is one reason he performs very well in prologues like Paris Nice or London 2007 but not as well in longer TTs example 2007 in Angoleme. His bike position while Time Trialing is comparable to the best TT riders in the peloton so loses no time in the TTs.

The connection with bad doping practices of the past is suspicious but many riders have cleaned up he may have done the same.

Contadiction in the statement.

But anyway, I competely disagree with you. There are limits, unless we evolve further. For example, in our current state do you think 6 secs for the 100m is possible?

 

[Digger]

I never said Le Monde was a tabloid, just that what they print/write ain't always true.

http://www.velonews.com/article/12964

You are talking about the same Werner Franke who had to pay money to Ullrich?
I applaud his mission, but surely Franke would have given the evidence he had on Contador's doping by now, don't you think?
I consider LA innocent until proven guilty, I will do the same with Contador, like with any other rider/athlete.

If AC was held accountable yes I'm sure he would be called.

So by your reasoning, Valverde is still innocent?

 

[peloton]

If AC was held accountable yes I'm sure he would be called.

So by your reasoning, Valverde is still innocent?

Franke was waiving documents on live TV saying he had proof Contador doped. This was in 2007.
Can you tell me where these "proofs" are, and why Franke has been silent since -07?

Contador was the ONLY rider Fuentes himself said he hadn't worked with, where does that leave Davis, Paulinho, LL Sanchez etc.?

Valverde is most likely innocent to a lot of things, but CONI got him wiht his blood bag with EPO.
That the UCI is still not responding to a ban that came in May/June is mind
boggling.