Is Contador becoming like Armstrong?

[Danilot]

Armstrong used to race very little every season after the Tour, and would dedicate the time to attending events, for which he was paid very well. As a result, we didn't get to see much one of the greatest champions [or frauds, depending on what side you take] in the late season races.

Alberto Contador, who is a great talent and could forge himself a truly amazing palmarès by winning almost every big race in sight, has similarly renounced to racing after the Tour. In 2007 he only raced the Tour of Missouri, and this year he's already renounced to a few races, and is attending events for which he is probably very handsomely paid.

I don't think winning the Tour of France gives a cyclist the right to snub a great number of races in the calendar. Even though I know they train thousands of hours per year, I believe these riders are very lazy compared to Tour champions or contenders such as Carlos Sastre, Cadel Evans et al. These men are both throwing the chance to forge a greater palmares for themselves, and showing a lack of respect for competitive cycling.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

Yes and there is nothing wrong with it. Next year he is probably going to get a lot of sponsorship money with Alonso. They are going to go out and throw a lot of money at some very talented riders so they build a team built around Contador to give him the best chance to win the tour. I hope to see all these guys referred to as "sell outs."

 

[mambo#5]

in a word. Yes.

 

[Arnout]

No.

Contador started the season in the Algarve. He won the race. In Paris - Nice he would've normally won, at least he tried to and his form was great. He won Pays Vasco.

Which means he peaked early in the season for the first time and during the Tour for the second time.

Two peaks in a season is pretty decent, nothing wrong with that. Besides, it has been not only a physical demanding season, but also a mental war for 7 months. There's nothing wrong with some rest afterwards.

 

[Publicus]

Armstrong used to race very little every season after the Tour, and would dedicate the time to attending events, for which he was paid very well. As a result, we didn't get to see much one of the greatest champions [or frauds, depending on what side you take] in the late season races.

Alberto Contador, who is a great talent and could forge himself a truly amazing palmarès by winning almost every big race in sight, has similarly renounced to racing after the Tour. In 2007 he only raced the Tour of Missouri, and this year he's already renounced to a few races, and is attending events for which he is probably very handsomely paid.

I don't think winning the Tour of France gives a cyclist the right to snub a great number of races in the calendar. Even though I know they train thousands of hours per year, I believe these riders are very lazy compared to Tour champions or contenders such as Carlos Sastre, Cadel Evans et al. These men are both throwing the chance to forge a greater palmares for themselves, and showing a lack of respect for competitive cycling.

I think the difference is he races a great deal in the early part of the season (Algave, Paris-Nice, Castilla y Leon, Tour of the Basque Country) to win and not just train. At least far more than Armstrong ever did. And really you only can compare 2007 and 2009, since he didn't ride the Tour in 2008. Then you have the contractual issues he's had to deal with this year, so you could see how his focus is not on more races.

But it's a good point. He's racing less (for whatever reason).

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I don't think winning the Tour of France gives a cyclist the right to snub a great number of races in the calendar.

Of course winning the Tour de France doesn't give a cyclist the right to snub other races.

Every cyclist has that right whether they win the Tour de France or not.

Why are you complaining about someone exercising a right in the way he wishes to exercise that right?

These men are both throwing the chance to forge a greater palmares for themselves, and showing a lack of respect for competitive cycling.

Maybe, though of course that's a matter of opinion. But at least this point is not absurd on its face, as is the earlier one.

 

[Danilot]

Of course winning the Tour de France doesn't give a cyclist the right to snub other races.

Every cyclist has that right whether they win the Tour de France or not.

Why are you complaining about someone exercising a right in the way he wishes to exercise that right?

Well, he doesn't from the moment he's paid to work. Okay, I'll work on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but I think I'm going to snub Monday and Friday. On Wednesday I'm going to get some pocket money from Grandad.

Why should he have more rights than any regular worker?

 

[HL2037]

Well, he doesn't from the moment he's paid to work. Okay, I'll work on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but I think I'm going to snub Monday and Friday. On Wednesday I'm going to get some pocket money from Grandad.

Why should he have more rights than any regular worker?

Because his employer says so?

 

[Danilot]

Because his employer says so?

His employer wanted him to race in Plouay. His employer also wants him to stay and honour his contract. He didn't do the former and will do his best not to do the latter.

So yeah, because he's doing what his employer says.

 

[Publicus]

Well, he doesn't from the moment he's paid to work. Okay, I'll work on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but I think I'm going to snub Monday and Friday. On Wednesday I'm going to get some pocket money from Grandad.

Why should he have more rights than any regular worker?

All around bad analogy. It's not like Astana placed an advertisement in the paper: Wanted Grand Tour Contender, must be willing to work minor races throughout the year...

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Well, he doesn't from the moment he's paid to work. Okay, I'll work on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but I think I'm going to snub Monday and Friday. On Wednesday I'm going to get some pocket money from Grandad.

Why should he have more rights than any regular worker?

Again, he has the same rights of any worker - whatever he is able to negotiate with his employer.

 

[BeachBum]

Perfect timing on asking this question-- I just read the CN article about AC saying he is giving up his World's spot. The further I read, the more I thought to myself, 'AC is becoming just like Lance.' AC even got in a backhanded dig, Lance-style, when he said, "I've been winning races since the beginning of the season and to get ready for the Worlds would require a major effort..."

Now, if we could just get AC and LA to race Lombardia...

 

[mherm79]

he's just maximising his earning potential. what's wrong with that?

i 'could' work saturdays if i like, and my boss, peers and clients would love me too, but I choose not too.

his achieved his goals for this year, why not let him take a break and focus on winning more GT next year.

 

[Andre.J]

No.

Contador started the season in the Algarve. He won the race. In Paris - Nice he would've normally won, at least he tried to and his form was great. He won Pays Vasco.

Which means he peaked early in the season for the first time and during the Tour for the second time.

Two peaks in a season is pretty decent, nothing wrong with that. Besides, it has been not only a physical demanding season, but also a mental war for 7 months. There's nothing wrong with some rest afterwards.

You can only peak once; that's why it's called a peak.

 

[Andre.J]

Plus Contador is not Eddy Merckx.

 

[David Suro]

I think Greg Lemond was the first tour champion to race an extremely limited schedule. He warmed up in the spring with some smaller races, rode great in the tour, and held onto form for the world's.

The result was success.

I think a sponsor would rather have a tour champion who races a limited schedule rather than a racer who places well throughout the year.

It is not a snub, it is the business of cycling.

 

[craig1985]

At least the races Contador races in, he tries to win. When was the last time Armstrong tried to win P-N and the Tour in the same year?

 

[Fatclimber]

No, he does way more races than LA did. He even tries to win them, with the exception of the Dauphine this year.

 

[rhubroma]

Of course winning the Tour de France doesn't give a cyclist the right to snub other races.

Every cyclist has that right whether they win the Tour de France or not.

Why are you complaining about someone exercising a right in the way he wishes to exercise that right?


Maybe, though of course that's a matter of opinion. But at least this point is not absurd on its face, as is the earlier one.

Don't agree. Lance was a an ungenerous champion. And the sport isn't just the Tour. A guy like LA should have tried to win a few classics and the Giro, another Worlds at the very least.

That he had the "right" to race the races as he saw fit, is such an American perspective (where most of the fan base only gets to watch, or even knows about the Tour and thinks rather shawlowly of the sport purely in terms of that race) that simply doesn't fly in Europe. Cycling made Lance, not the otherway around. And there's something here, in Europe, called class and honoring tradition and this very beautiful and priviledged profession of cycling. So for the majority of Europeans, LA was a Tour champion. No more. And certainly can't be even considered among the likes of Merckx, Hinault, Coppi, Anquetil, etc. So it's not just about a corporate mentality of maximising your investment, to get the greatest return on it as LA did by attempting to win only the Tour. It's seen as shallow and means that he did more than any other single rider in the history of the sport, to kill the romance in it.

Real cycling fans, not the bandwagon crew back in the States, want to see great champions combating in different terrain throughout the season within reason. So at the top of his game, Lance, to honor his profession and demonstrate a certian class and generosity to the fans, should have tested himself also at LBL, Flanders, Roubaix (perhaps not all in the same year) and the Giro against others to win them at the very least.

Now the Worlds has become problematical, for any rider who has peaked in the spring and at the Tour, as is AC's case, because one also has to ride at least half of the Vuelta to be competitive. AC would be asking too much of himself to try it. Hopefully in the future he will peak later than the last couple of years, perhaps for the first time at LBL, then go on to win the Tour, Vuelta and Worlds in one year. It would be kinda like Roche winning the Giro, Tour and Worlds (when the latter race was in Sept.) all in one year in 87. Oh...and, by the way, if my comments about romanticism and generosity, were to abstract and obscure (and human) from your way of thinking, I'd suggest you review all those 80's champions performances like the ones just mentioned on UTube to get a clue.

 

[thehog]

Truth be told Alberto is nothing like LA. He's had a very difficult season or more way than one. They way he was treated this year by Johan was a very difficult adjustment for Alberto. Lance he expected to treat him poorly> Howeverhe did not expect it from Johan who had made several promises and assurances to him since 2005 that they will go a long way together. Alberto is a trusting man. Probably trusts too much but that’s the sort of guy he is.

Alberto is taking time out of racing and the spotlight to get his mind back in order and spend time with his family; it has little to do with racing like Lance Armstrong.

If Alberto had a team he loved and who loved him he would be racing. One thing for sure is he’ll never speak to Cyclingnews ever again.

 

[craig1985]

Don't agree. Lance was a an ungenerous champion. And the sport isn't just the Tour. A guy like LA should have tried to win a few classics and the Giro, another Worlds at the very least.

That he had the "right" to race the races as he saw fit, is such an American perspective (where most of the fan base only gets to watch, or even knows about the Tour and thinks rather shawlowly of the sport purely in terms of that race) that simply doesn't fly in Europe. Cycling made Lance, not the otherway around. And there's something here, in Europe, called class and honoring tradition and this very beautiful and priviledged profession of cycling. So for the majority of Europeans, LA was a Tour champion. No more. And certainly can't be even considered among the likes of Merckx, Hinault, Coppi, Anquetil, etc. So it's not just about a corporate mentality of maximising your investment, to get the greatest return on it as LA did by attempting to win only the Tour. It's seen as shallow and means that he did more than any other single rider in the history of the sport, to kill the romance in it.

Real cycling fans, not the bandwagon crew back in the States, want to see great champions combating in different terrain throughout the season within reason. So at the top of his game, Lance, to honor his profession and demonstrate a certian class and generosity to the fans, should have tested himself also at LBL, Flanders, Roubaix (perhaps not all in the same year) and the Giro against others to win them at the very least.

Now the Worlds has become problematical, for any rider who has peaked in the spring and at the Tour, as is AC's case, because one also has to ride at least half of the Vuelta to be competitive. AC would be asking too much of himself to try it. Hopefully in the future he will peak later than the last couple of years, perhaps for the first time at LBL, then go on to win the Tour, Vuelta and Worlds in one year. It would be kinda like Roche winning the Giro, Tour and Worlds (when the latter race was in Sept.) all in one year in 87. Oh...and, by the way, if my comments about romanticism and generosity, were to abstract and obscure (and human) from your way of thinking, I'd suggest you review all those 80's champions performances like the ones just mentioned on UTube to get a clue.

But the thing is up until the 2003 Tour de France LA did do this. He would line up at the Ardennes classics (in all honesty if he rode with his brain and not his legs he would of won L-B-L) and place fairly highly (where he came second to Erik Dekker at the 2001 Amstel Gold). In 2002 he even lined up at MSR, RVV, Classica San Sebastian, and the Championship of Zurich He finished 3rd IIRC).

It was disappointing that he rode Tour of Gila instead of the Tour of Romandie, where for him results in Gila would mean nothing compared to a local rider.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Contador is becoming more and more like armstrong. More and more people dislike him by the day after every victory. He's a little arrogant in my book and i didn't think he was a team player at this years tour but neither was armstrong.

 

[Murray]

... And certainly can't be even considered among the likes of Merckx, Hinault, Coppi, Anquetil, etc. So it's not just about a corporate mentality of maximising your investment..

Nice rose-colored glasses you've got on there. Especially mentioning Anquetil... I've read several interviews with him where he made it clear he raced primarily for the cash. For him, more racing meant more wins meant more money. Back then there was not much in terms of salary so riders depended on race winnings for their income.

Today, a guy like Contador gets paid very well without having to race all the time.... and good for him.

 

[thehog]

Is Armstrong becoming more like Contador by racing so much?

 

[Berzin]

I don't think winning the Tour of France gives a cyclist the right to snub a great number of races in the calendar. Even though I know they train thousands of hours per year, I believe these riders are very lazy compared to Tour champions or contenders such as Carlos Sastre, Cadel Evans et al. These men are both throwing the chance to forge a greater palmares for themselves, and showing a lack of respect for competitive cycling.

I don't know if you've noticed, but cycling has evolved in the last 15 years.

Riders and teams don't ride for "glory", prestige or to show respect to the sport. They never did. Those romantic notions are held by fans and spectators who have the luxury of seeing cycling as a hobby.

At the end of the day cycling is a job, and very few can ever boast of making great money at it. Part of Armstrong's legacy is his mercenary attitude towards winning the biggest payday on the calendar when he began winning the Tour.

Armstrong maximized his earning potential in those three weeks. Nothing else mattered. He rode training races before that and did not much of anything else afterwards, and his team was happy to pay him for the whole year to ride like this.

So if Contador does the same, good for him. He deserves it. If you were in his position you would do the same thing. This is what happens when a sport has an event that eclipses all others on the calendar and it's held right in the middle of the year.