Schlecks Depreciation Thread

[Libertine Seguros]

I get that you still count the 2010 Tour ( and 2011 Giro)as won by Contador, but by that logic Contador didn't really win the 2007 Tour.

Except for that Contador finished the 2010 Tour and 2011 Giro, and was DQed. Rasmussen recorded a DNF some four stages from the finish, just the reasons for it were controversial. There were still GC-relevant stages to come, so in that case, do you consider that Vincenzo Nibali didn't really win the 2010 Vuelta because Antón was winning, clearly the best on the climbs and crashed out?

 

[airstream]

What do you mean? I don't understand?

I mean, you started rooting for him primarily as he respects all races, didnt you?

 

[LaFlorecita]

I mean, you started rooting for him primarily as he respects all races, didnt you?

For Alberto? Partially.

 

[El Pistolero]

Except for that Contador finished the 2010 Tour and 2011 Giro, and was DQed. Rasmussen recorded a DNF some four stages from the finish, just the reasons for it were controversial. There were still GC-relevant stages to come, so in that case, do you consider that Vincenzo Nibali didn't really win the 2010 Vuelta because Antón was winning, clearly the best on the climbs and crashed out?

I agree with this, who ever wins in Paris wins the Tour. Though if the Tour winner would test positive for something big like EPO I might consider the second one to have actually won. But Contador didn't even test positive in the Giro, so I'll always consider him the winner there.

 

[Mambo95]

Had Contador tested positive on stage 2 and it had become apparent by the middle of the Tour, he would have been sent home - just like Kolobnev this year. No waiting for a hearing.
I don't see why Contador should be seen any differently just because he was more fortunate with his timing. He should have been DQ'd the instant the test failure became known. That's the penalty for that particular 'foul'.

He's not the 2010 Tour winner, regardless of whether he doped or not, and shouldn't be viewed as such.

 

[The Hitch]

What made you think the list was exhaustive?

The wording "at least theres still".

 

[jens_attacks]

winners:
2011 giro:contador
2010 tour de france:contador
2006 tour de france:floyd landis
2005 vuelta espana:roberto heras

on the other hand,we have another situation...very unfortunate and here was the real drama,not in the above cases because marco and rasmussen didn't reach the final podium.

1999 giro d'italia:ivan gotti
2007 tour de france:contador

 

[The Hitch]

He's not the 2010 Tour winner, regardless of whether he doped or not, and shouldn't be viewed as such.

Even if he didnt dope hes not the Tour winner?

Except for that Contador finished the 2010 Tour and 2011 Giro, and was DQed. Rasmussen recorded a DNF some four stages from the finish, just the reasons for it were controversial. There were still GC-relevant stages to come, so in that case, do you consider that Vincenzo Nibali didn't really win the 2010 Vuelta because Antón was winning, clearly the best on the climbs and crashed out?

I agree with this, who ever wins in Paris wins the Tour. Though if the Tour winner would test positive for something big like EPO I might consider the second one to have actually won. But Contador didn't even test positive in the Giro, so I'll always consider him the winner there.

Except for that Contador finished the 2010 Tour and 2011 Giro, and was DQed. Rasmussen recorded a DNF some four stages from the finish, just the reasons for it were controversial. There were still GC-relevant stages to come, so in that case, do you consider that Vincenzo Nibali didn't really win the 2010 Vuelta because Antón was winning, clearly the best on the climbs and crashed out?

I agree with this, who ever wins in Paris wins the Tour. Though if the Tour winner would test positive for something big like EPO I might consider the second one to have actually won. But Contador didn't even test positive in the Giro, so I'll always consider him the winner there.

So is Pantani the winner of the 99 Giro then?

I get that you still count the 2010 Tour ( and 2011 Giro)as won by Contador, but by that logic Contador didn't really win the 2007 Tour.

 

[jens_attacks]

hitch the thing is giro wasn't over at madona di campiglio.what if marco would have crashed descending mortirolo that day??

 

[Mambo95]

Even if he didnt dope hes not the Tour winner?

In my view yes. If you fail a test, that's a 'foul' punishable by a DQ, intentional or not.

 

[ferryman]

In my view yes. If you fail a test, that's a 'foul' punishable by a DQ, intentional or not.

Heading for a Mods stop it but do you believe the new 2010 TDF winner was riding clean or, for that matter any of the top ten? If your answer is yes I respect your view. If it is no then I find it a bit narrow.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I'm not saying that because Contador finished in Paris he therefore won the Tour and Schleck didn't.

I'm saying that it is not analogous to 2007, because the situations are different. We cannot say for certain Michael Rasmussen wouldn't have had a 2005-like ITT and lost his lead, just like we can't say for certain Igor Antón would have won the 2010 Vuelta.

Rasmussen committed an infringement and was given a penalty that stopped him winning the race; Contador won the race but was subsequently investigated after the race and retroactively punished, negating the actual victory. Different.

 

[Mambo95]

Heading for a Mods stop it but do you believe the new 2010 TDF winner was riding clean or, for that matter any of the top ten? If your answer is yes I respect your view. If it is no then I find it a bit narrow.

I wouldn't have a clue. It's not important what I think, or indeed, what they've done. What matters is a foul has been committed and been spotted and therefore gets punished.

In a football match, if a referee sees a foul, he punishes it accordingly. He doesn't let it go on the basis that he may have missed other fouls.

 

[The Hitch]

I wouldn't have a clue. It's not important what I think, or indeed, what they've done. What matters is a foul has been committed and been spotted and therefore gets punished.

In a football match, if a referee sees a foul, he punishes it accordingly. He doesn't let it go on the basis that he may have missed other fouls.

Not if the foul is only seen a month later. Once the whistle final whistle goes the winners are the winners. Doesnt matter if Henry they see later that Henry handballed it or that Mussolini poisoned the other team. The winner on the day is the winner forever.

 

[Mambo95]

Not if the foul is only seen a month later. Once the whistle final whistle goes the winners are the winners. Doesnt matter if Henry they see later that Henry handballed it or that Mussolini poisoned the other team. The winner on the day is the winner forever.

Your stretching an allusion beyond it's usefulness there. A feeble debating technique.

However, that's because the rules of football are that way. If a handball resulted in a team automatically losing, then maybe results would be revisited on review.

 

[ferryman]

I'm not saying that because Contador finished in Paris he therefore won the Tour and Schleck didn't.

I'm saying that it is not analogous to 2007, because the situations are different. We cannot say for certain Michael Rasmussen wouldn't have had a 2005-like ITT and lost his lead, just like we can't say for certain Igor Antón would have won the 2010 Vuelta.

Rasmussen committed an infringement and was given a penalty that stopped him winning the race; Contador won the race but was subsequently investigated after the race and retroactively punished, negating the actual victory. Different.

Not analogous no that would we Landis/Oscar. But not so different in the end. Rasmussen didn't receive a penalty that stopped him winning the Tour, the difference was he was proactively punished by his own team after evidence came to light during the Tour. Not so different from failing a test during the Tour really as he was going to be DQ'd regardless. Just a matter of timing.

 

[ultimobici]

Riders who are consistent in classics and GT ... (like Andy ... so far, at least)

Yep, AS is at least consistent in Classics & GT's. he either avoids them (Giro & all but Ardennes) or gets beaten (Tour & Ardennes)

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Not analogous no that would we Landis/Oscar. But not so different in the end. Rasmussen didn't receive a penalty that stopped him winning the Tour, the difference was he was proactively punished by his own team after evidence came to light during the Tour. Not so different from failing a test during the Tour really as he was going to be DQ'd regardless. Just a matter of timing.

The end result may be the same (a victory by default) but it's different.

How it is possible to say that Contador won the 2007 Tour by the same way as Schleck won the 2010 Tour I don't know. It makes leaps of faith about Rasmussen's performance. Contador stood on the top step in Paris. Rasmussen didn't finish the course, ergo he COULD NOT win. It is irrelevant whether he would have been DQed if he had won (in which case it would have been analogous), because he DID NOT.

Contador had something, then that something was taken away.
Rasmussen never had that something in the first place, it just looked like he was going to get it.

 

[ferryman]

I wouldn't have a clue. It's not important what I think, or indeed, what they've done. What matters is a foul has been committed and been spotted and therefore gets punished.

In a football match, if a referee sees a foul, he punishes it accordingly. He doesn't let it go on the basis that he may have missed other fouls.

I'm sure you have an opinion though and that is what I was asking regarding why you hold the view you do. In other words trying to understand why you have such a black and white view on, what we all know, is not a black and white situation. Antway, enough from me on this as really Clinic material.

 

[blaxland]

Evans is never off the bike. He trains through the off season, not seriously but he always starts the racing season in pretty good shape. Now he is racing less but doing quality training in training camps on mountain climbs etc....Schleck is now talking about what Lance Armstrong used to do to win the TDF. What gives ? It sounds like he is looking for an easy way to win the TDF and there is none.

I totally agree with this quote...Lets see if Andy fails again this Tour De France?what will his excuses be?

 

[ferryman]

The end result may be the same (a victory by default) but it's different.

No it's not, it's still just a matter of timing but I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this. Unles you disagree to agree to disagree

 

[Libertine Seguros]

No it's not, it's still just a matter of timing but I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this. Unles you disagree to agree to disagree

I do disagree to agree to disagree.

One person got DQed DURING a race, hence DID NOT WIN IT.
One person WON A RACE, then was DQed AFTER the race.

Michael Rasmussen has never, at any point, been the winner of the 2007 Tour de France. Nobody can argue that he was, because he didn't even finish the race. How can Rasmussen have ever been the winner? Alberto Contador has, however, been the winner of the 2010 Tour de France - he just isn't the winner anymore.

If we say that Rasmussen won the 2007 Tour (which we imply by saying Contador won that Tour the way Schleck won the 2010 Tour) we open ourselves up to a wide range of revisionist history. Pantani won the '99 Giro. Antón won the '10 Vuelta, and so on.

 

[The Hitch]

Your stretching an allusion beyond it's usefulness there. A feeble debating technique.

However, that's because the rules of football are that way. If a handball resulted in a team automatically losing, then maybe results would be revisited on review.

No Im just showing you that your allusion is wrong.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Guys - Keep the doping talk to a minimum here, please. While the thread is doing good, and it's valid to question whether Schleck should be declared the 2010 winner, don't let it degrade too far.

To try to keep somewhat on topic in a sense, the 2006 Tour I saw had Floyd standing on the top of the podium, and Alberto doing the same in 2010. Either they are the winners, or there is no winner. That's how I see it.

Andy's best Tour was last year, actually. A noble loss to a better rider.

 

[SilentAssassin]

I dont think he will be considered the winner in many people`s eyes. He certainly wont in mine. If i was the guy who lost the Tour by 39 secs to a guy who was found guilty of an offence i would be livid. You were deprived of standing on the top step of the podium and all the adulation that comes with it. Instead we have heard nothing of the sort from Schleck so he is no winner in my mind whatsoever.

He'll be considered a winner by Contador fans. For people that dislike Contador, which is the majority, he will not be considered the 2010 TDF winner. And people overall don't like cheats in general, so Contador will never be considered the winner, even unofficially in most people's eyes.

A lot of people booed Contador in 2010. He was never a crowd favorite, so your blind fan favoritism is clouding your judgement.

But "In people's eyes" doesn't matter. What matters is the official record. And that shows AS as the winner for 2010. To the majority, Contador will always be a cheat in their eyes now. He'll never gain back his reputation. Sorry but it's the cold hard truth and the reality of the situation.