Lance v. Contador - revisited?

Some uncomfortable questions now spring into mind (sorry LaFlo in advance!)

No one else got away with such disrespect so:
How come Contador in 2009 at Astana got away with showing disrespect to Armstrong?
He did it on the road, brilliantly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo4uPsm_Ur0&feature=youtu.be#t=09m35s
He did afterwards:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/sports/cycling/28cycling.html?_r=1
“My relationship with Lance is zero,” Contador said at a news conference, one day after winning his second Tour. “He is a great rider and has completed a great race, but it is another thing on a personal level, where I have never had great admiration for him and I never will.”

How come the Lance machine didn't take him down during that tour?
Did Lance get him back later by masterminding the Clen-scandal?


Contador is cagey about Lance now:
http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/08/25/185--Bitter-teammate-Contador-pays-tribute-to-banned-legend-Armstrong.html
"I think he was a cyclist who always showed such strength, great intelligence and spectacular physical conditioning, ... a supreme athlete"
Has Lance still got some nasty against Alberto?
 
There's been some speculation about the 7 different DNA traces found in the Astana syringes. Levi had abandoned, so there were 8 riders left. Maybe Contador was doing his own thing with his own people.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
TourOfSardinia said:
Some uncomfortable questions now spring into mind (sorry LaFlo in advance!)

No one else got away with such disrespect so:
How come Contador in 2009 at Astana got away with showing disrespect to Armstrong?
He did it on the road, brilliantly.
He did afterwards:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/sports/cycling/28cycling.html?_r=1



How come the Lance machine didn't take him down during that tour?
Did Lance get him back later by masterminding the Clen-scandal?


Contador is cagey about Lance now:
http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/08/25/185--Bitter-teammate-Contador-pays-tribute-to-banned-legend-Armstrong.html


Has Lance still got some nasty against Alberto?
A contador positive in 2009 would have reflected badly on bruyneel/armstrong, who until then never had never had a positive on any of their teams, which was an important part of the myth. So i guess in 2009 lance had no choice but to bite the dust.

whether the 2010 clen positive is in anyway related to lance, i personally doubt that. On the other hand, I assume if Dirty had been on better terms with Lance and Bruyneel and thus with Pat, then the Clen positive would not have seen the light of day (or better: his samples would never have been sent to the cologne lab in the first place).
 
The Hitch said:
I dont see how the 2010 clen could be Lances work because why then would the UCi try to cover it up. Unless they only prerended to or something, and we go into conspiracy theory realm.
Not to mention it would be very hard to spike his food or his blood or whatever to produce those results. It's not viable. Armstrong is evil, not a Marvel supervillain.
 
TourOfSardinia said:
Some uncomfortable questions now spring into mind (sorry LaFlo in advance!)

No one else got away with such disrespect so:
How come Contador in 2009 at Astana got away with showing disrespect to Armstrong?
He did it on the road, brilliantly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo4uPsm_Ur0&feature=youtu.be#t=09m35s
He did afterwards:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/sports/cycling/28cycling.html?_r=1



How come the Lance machine didn't take him down during that tour?
Did Lance get him back later by masterminding the Clen-scandal?


Contador is cagey about Lance now:
http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/08/25/185--Bitter-teammate-Contador-pays-tribute-to-banned-legend-Armstrong.html



Has Lance still got some nasty against Alberto?
May be because his personal trainer Pepe Marti is still awaiting arbitration, and
any condemning of Lance is counterproductive for him.
Lance will have to implicate Bruyneel if he speaks out against AC.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
hrotha said:
Not to mention it would be very hard to spike his food or his blood or whatever to produce those results. It's not viable. Armstrong is evil, not a Marvel supervillain.
we only have to imagine LA/Brownie/Pat deciding to target test Contador, cuz if you do you'll be very likely to find something.
seems unlikely to me that LA was directly behind such a decision, but in any case there is no need to hypothesize LA's involvement only through a spiking scenario.

we're starting to find out that the reasons why certain riders never tested positive is not just because of their formidable masking agents, but also because of sheer unwillingness of UCI to go after certain guys. So perhaps AC had been safe (i.e. receiving UCI priority treatment) up to 2010, but not after.
 
sniper said:
we only have to imagine LA/Brownie/Pat deciding to target test Contador, cuz if you do you'll be very likely to find something.
seems unlikely to me that LA was directly behind such a decision, but in any case there is no need to hypothesize LA's involvement only through a spiking scenario.

we're starting to find out that the reasons why certain riders never tested positive is not just because of their formidable masking agents, but also because of sheer unwillingness of UCI to go after certain guys. So perhaps AC had been safe (i.e. receiving UCI priority treatment) up to 2010, but not after.
Could be. Bruyneel was no longer his DS and cyclists like Landis and Heras tested positive after they left JB.
 
sniper said:
we only have to imagine LA/Brownie/Pat deciding to target test Contador, cuz if you do you'll be very likely to find something.
seems unlikely to me that LA was directly behind such a decision, but in any case there is no need to hypothesize LA's involvement only through a spiking scenario.

we're starting to find out that the reasons why certain riders never tested positive is not just because of their formidable masking agents, but also because of sheer unwillingness of UCI to go after certain guys. So perhaps AC had been safe (i.e. receiving UCI priority treatment) up to 2010, but not after.
Hmm, yes, I suppose that isn't impossible. But that would have to be LA, not Bruyneel. Bruyneel isn't vindictive like that, he just has no control over Armstrong, like we learned from Floyd's account of the Simeoni fiasco. Bruyneel would not benefit from that move in any way.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
My theory?

UCI loves Lance, even now, when it's looking like crap, they need to / want to support him. ANy current pro rider speaking out is essentially speaking out on behalf of their sponsors as well.

Contador gets no points for 2 years, wrecking his team and his career. Riis is talking about appealing UCI's ruling - and from memory this is the first time it's being tested / implemented.

Thus:

3 levels of love from Contador (and for that matter, from anyone on the team):

Poop on Lance's head: confirm to UCI you deserve no points.
Neutral towards Lance: meh from UCI
Appear to support and adore Lance: far more likely to be looked upon favourably.

This will apply even if Hein / Phat are ejected - cycling is still caught in a vicious protectionist "spiral of silence" cycle.
 
hrotha said:
Hmm, yes, I suppose that isn't impossible. But that would have to be LA, not Bruyneel. Bruyneel isn't vindictive like that, he just has no control over Armstrong, like we learned from Floyd's account of the Simeoni fiasco. Bruyneel would not benefit from that move in any way.
Different subject, but that should be Bruyneel's argument if he needs to escape a life time ban. It was LA, and not him who was running the show and he had a very difficult choice to make.
 
the big ring said:
My theory?

UCI loves Lance, even now, when it's looking like crap, they need to / want to support him. ANy current pro rider speaking out is essentially speaking out on behalf of their sponsors as well.

Contador gets no points for 2 years, wrecking his team and his career. Riis is talking about appealing UCI's ruling - and from memory this is the first time it's being tested / implemented.

.
Riis said that they were seeking permission from the UCI to go to CAS and appeal the ruling:eek:, so not exactly testing it.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
the asian said:
Riis said that they were seeking permission from the UCI to go to CAS and appeal the ruling:eek:, so not exactly testing it.
No I meant UCI are testing it - they haven't restricted points before have they?
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
sniper said:
we're starting to find out that the reasons why certain riders never tested positive is not just because of their formidable masking agents, but also because of sheer unwillingness of UCI to go after certain guys. So perhaps AC had been safe (i.e. receiving UCI priority treatment) up to 2010, but not after.
Duh...

* Hamilton
* Heras
* Contador
* Landis

Big fish. Do not mess with the sociopath.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Duh...

* Hamilton
* Heras
* Contador
* Landis

Big fish. Do not mess with the sociopath.
That's what I've always said. In fact, I said it the same year Contador was riding with Lance: "Next year, look for Contador to go positive. Why? Because every cyclist who's ridden with Lance, crossed him, and left the team, has gone positive. Why should Alberto be any different?" So I wasn't surprised when it happened.

EDIT: I also think LA may have been complicit in Landis's positive. LA and Hein were trying at the time to buy the Tour from the Amuary family, but were finding it cost too much. The Tour winner going positive might lower the race's value considerably. And I'm pretty sure LA had nothing but contempt for Landis . . . .
 
Aug 3, 2009
169
0
0
Now that Lance has been brought down by USADA, there are likely TONS of really nervous people. The UCI and Contador really have to cautiously back him in public, because if they don't Lance could decide at any time to blow it all up. He doesn't have a lot to lose any more. Lance clearly knows the full goods on both.
 
Maxiton said:
That's what I've always said. In fact, I said it the same year Contador was riding with Lance: "Next year, look for Contador to go positive. Why? Because every cyclist who's ridden with Lance, crossed him, and left the team, has gone positive. Why should Alberto be any different?" So I wasn't surprised when it happened.

EDIT: I also think LA may have been complicit in Landis's positive. LA and Hein were trying at the time to buy the Tour from the Amuary family, but were finding it cost too much. The Tour winner going positive might lower the race's value considerably. And I'm pretty sure LA had nothing but contempt for Landis . . . .
uh-huh. +1.

last thing armstrong wanted was his legacy being tarnished the very next year by one of his ex-servants (and another american) showing how easy it was to win with the right stuff.

the uci (from 1999 on) have been in bed with armstrong -- both financially and in committing fraud. from that point on they were obliged to work together for armstrong's benefit.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
We're getting a bit deep into conspiracy theories here. Armstrong did everything he could to take down Contador in 2009 without exposing himself or destroying the team. Attempts to get in his head via media commentary, having his teammates lead the chase on Verbier, not sharing the advance knowledge of HTC's planned move to create echelons, diverting the team car on the day of the final ITT, not sharing the new wheels, attitude at team dinners impacting morale... it went on. I don't think for a second that he had anything to do with Contador's subsequent positive, and if the UCI was complicit why did they act so slowly?

Contador is taking the high road now for a few reasons. One, he is the worst person to talk about dopers being only one week off a doping suspension. Two, he isn't going to do anything to affect his former DS and trainer. Three, he may be a fantastic cyclist and a true natural talent, but this guy is a doper folks, through and through. It's not a fear of Lance, it's not wanting to open the door any further into his or his associates' activities.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
pedaling squares said:
We're getting a bit deep into conspiracy theories here. Armstrong did everything he could to take down Contador in 2009 without exposing himself or destroying the team. Attempts to get in his head via media commentary, having his teammates lead the chase on Verbier, not sharing the advance knowledge of HTC's planned move to create echelons, diverting the team car on the day of the final ITT, not sharing the new wheels, attitude at team dinners impacting morale... it went on. I don't think for a second that he had anything to do with Contador's subsequent positive, and if the UCI was complicit why did they act so slowly?

Contador is taking the high road now for a few reasons. One, he is the worst person to talk about dopers being only one week off a doping suspension. Two, he isn't going to do anything to affect his former DS and trainer. Three, he may be a fantastic cyclist and a true natural talent, but this guy is a doper folks, through and through. It's not a fear of Lance, it's not wanting to open the door any further into his or his associates' activities.
I hear what you're saying, but would remind you, first of all, that "deep into conspiracy theories" is the first objection people make when you suggest that LA, his team, a bunch of doctors, a Swiss lab, and the UCI all worked together over seven years to ensure that LA won the Tour without failing a drug test (or without being caught). From non-Clinicians the usual response is, "Come on, you don't really expect me to believe that, do you?"

Every human misdeed involving two or more people in collusion is a conspiracy. By definition. So "deep into conspiracy theories" means absolutely zilch.

As for Armstrong complicity in the Contador positive: As someone else explained above, they couldn't have AC going positive while he was on their team, for their own reasons. The following year, when he was on a different team, was a different story. But why then was UCI so slow? For one thing, the UCI is no monolith; one corrupt guy there may not know what another corrupt guy there is doing. Second, AC is a huge figure in pro cycling, arguably second only to Armstrong. So even though you've stuck the knife in him with one hand, it would be important to comfort him and appear to be trying to help him with the other . . . .
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
Maxiton said:
As for Armstrong complicity in the Contador positive: As someone else explained above, they couldn't have AC going positive while he was on their team, for their own reasons. The following year, when he was on a different team, was a different story. But why then was UCI so slow? For one thing, the UCI is no monolith; one corrupt guy there may not know what another corrupt guy there is doing. Second, AC is a huge figure in pro cycling, arguably second only to Armstrong. So even though you've stuck the knife in him with one hand, it would be important to comfort him and appear to be trying to help him with the other . . . .
Another theory: if Contador is winning without the assistance of the UCI, what better way to get him onside than ping him for something like Clenbuterol? Keep it hush hush and let him know, see if he's prepared to come to the party? Spend some time negotiating or attempting to and then if he's not interested, somehow, someone gets wind of it. Oops.

Suits Armstrong as Contador's either on the books now and implicated or he's got an indelible mark against him and looks dumb if he ever casts aspersions on the LA group.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS