Super-human performances from Contador at Giro?

[Galic Ho]

The sad thing is this thread is why the Clinic has deteriorated. People's logic is all backwards.

In a cleaner peloton the time gaps will be bigger. One rider, maybe two or three will hands down put minutes into their competition. They won't attack non stop and hold off every ride. They won't be able to go 100% full throttle all day, let alone have their team set a cracking pace up till the final climb where they take over.

In a cleaner peloton, the most naturally gifted will race all season and do well, just like before 1991 and the onset of EPO. Hinault beat third place in one Tour by 20 minutes. Fignon put almost 10 minutes into Lemond and Hinault in 1984. That's the problem with some people around here in the Clinic, selective memories and insights. I don't see anyone questioning Andy Schleck who races just like LA did. Add in the power outputs are dropping and the hardest GT in 20 years, it's no surprise AC was as consistent as he was. Superhuman? Not that I saw, believable. Not foolproof clean, but nothing Superhuman. AC was always a class above Scarponi and Nibali, your dreaming if you thought he wouldn't win, let alone would face serious trouble. Consistency is his key attribute and he does it all season long. The time gaps are explainable IMO. Does that make him a super doper? Not even close.

How about a ToC thread and we can talk about the Fountain of Youth discovered at RadioShack?

 

[uberbiker]

The guy was in the pink jersey for thirteen days, guaranteeing anti-doping tests.

how did that work out for FL, TH and ohh maybe even LA??

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

That's two posts for you that have avoided the question I posed. I'm not trying to start a pillow fight here, so if you're itching for one, search elsewhere.

I'm just curious as to what people see as superhuman from Contador. Several posters, including Berzin and others have addressed this. You have not.

Hang on a second, aren't you one of the "they all or nearly all dope" guys? Are you now trying to tell us that you believe Contador is the exception?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

The sad thing is this thread is why the Clinic has deteriorated. People's logic is all backwards.

In a cleaner peloton the time gaps will be bigger. One rider, maybe two or three will hands down put minutes into their competition. They won't attack non stop and hold off every ride. They won't be able to go 100% full throttle all day, let alone have their team set a cracking pace up till the final climb where they take over.

In a cleaner peloton, the most naturally gifted will race all season and do well, just like before 1991 and the onset of EPO. Hinault beat third place in one Tour by 20 minutes. Fignon put almost 10 minutes into Lemond and Hinault in 1984. That's the problem with some people around here in the Clinic, selective memories and insights. I don't see anyone questioning Andy Schleck who races just like LA did. Add in the power outputs are dropping and the hardest GT in 20 years, it's no surprise AC was as consistent as he was. Superhuman? Not that I saw, believable. Not foolproof clean, but nothing Superhuman. AC was always a class above Scarponi and Nibali, your dreaming if you thought he wouldn't win, let alone would face serious trouble. Consistency is his key attribute and he does it all season long. The time gaps are explainable IMO. Does that make him a super doper? Not even close.

How about a ToC thread and we can talk about the Fountain of Youth discovered at RadioShack?

I think you and Berzin have both hit the nail on the head. I'm astounded when I see posters like hrotha comparing AC and LA. They have nothing in common. Their styles and different, as are their talents.

I have seen nothing in this Giro that points to a superhuman performance. Nothing. AC's time on the Zoncolan was impressive only to those who see everything Contador does through the lens of a cynic. What was Contador's time compared to Schleck's performance in 2007?

Sestriere underscored the difficulty of this Giro and its effects on the racers. It was a grupetto ride to the end. The contenders were spent. We all saw it.

Equating what Armstrong has done with Contador isn't just an insult to Contador, it's an insult to the intelligence of the poster making that comparison.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Hang on a second, aren't you one of the "they all or nearly all dope" guys? Are you now trying to tell us that you believe Contador is the exception?

Want to answer my question in the OP first, and then I'll be happy to answer yours.

Are you quoting me there, because if you're done pulling stuff out of your a$$, pull your head out while you're down there.

There are a lot of people on this board who understand sports performance much better than I do. I want to know if they see something I do not. That's all.

 

[Califootman]

I think many would say that the end of stage 19 was certainly a super, human performace from Contador.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

how did that work out for FL, TH and ohh maybe even LA??

I dunno, skippy, how did it? Tell us all about how Landis and TH were in the lead for 13 days.

Fail.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Want to answer my question in the OP first, and then I'll be happy to answer yours.

Sure.

1) Whether anything Contador did was "superhuman" would depend on the doping status of the other guys in the top 10. If it was a clean field, then it was a performance which was exceptionally good but by no means damning in and of itself. Contador would be expected to beat the riders he was up against, doing so with a relatively substantial margin is not wildly surprising.

2) The only slightly suprising part of the result was that he rode the hardest GT parcours of recent times without having even one noticeably bad day. Then again, for all we know, he actually was weak on a day or two and there simply wasn't a strong enough, top form, opponent to show the world. Perhaps a Tour strength Schleck Jr would have destroyed him on the day Anton put 33 seconds into him on the Zoncolan. We can't know.

3) Superhuman performance is evidence of doping, but the absence of superhuman performance is not evidence of the absence of doping.

Are you quoting me there,

No, I'm not quoting you. I'm asking if you that's your attitude. You posts haven't made an enormously strong impression on me, but I had a vague memory that you were one of the people in that camp. I wasn't sure however, so I asked you.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Sure.

1) Whether anything Contador did was "superhuman" would depend on the doping status of the other guys in the top 10. If it was a clean field, then it was a performance which was exceptionally good but by no means damning in and of itself. Contador would be expected to beat the riders he was up against, doing so with a relatively substantial margin is not wildly surprising.

2) The only slightly suprising part of the result was that he rode the hardest GT parcours of recent times without having even one noticeably bad day. Then again, for all we know, he actually was weak on a day or two and there simply wasn't a strong enough, top form, opponent to show the world. Perhaps a Tour strength Schleck Jr would have destroyed him on the day Anton put 33 seconds into him on the Zoncolan. We can't know.

3) Superhuman performance is evidence of doping, but the absence of superhuman performance is not evidence of the absence of doping.



No, I'm not quoting you. I'm asking if you that's your attitude. You posts haven't made an enormously strong impression on me, but I had a vague memory that you were one of the people in that camp. I wasn't sure however, so I asked you.

I have no dispute with anything you posted above. I think you and I are largely in agreement on these things. As I said, I am curious of others' take on what transpired.

Do I think they are all doping? No. I think, by and large, the French teams are clean. I think guys like Voeckler and Moncoutie are clean. I think Contador has doped in the past. I do not think the doped last year or this year.

Then again, I am admittedly just a cycling fan. I don't know the ins and outs of doping. That is, again, the reason for my starting this thread to get a better understanding of that I am seeing. I saw nothing even remotely superhuman.

I think Contador has, like Indurain, a very finely honed ability to hide his weakness. I think a couple of times in this Giro, he was vulnerable. Not sure who could have taken advantage of it, other than, as you mention, maybe Schleck.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Ah, so you aren't one of the "they all or nearly all dope" posters. Sorry about the confusion.

I think Contador has doped in the past. I do not think the doped last year or this year.

What makes you think that?

 

[movingtarget]

Umm they had Menchov (last years Tour 3rd place), and admitedly past it Sastre, Nibali and Scarponi who last year only lost time to Basso on one mountain, Rodriguez - 4th in Vuelta, 3rd on Tourmalet, Anton, who many here rate as a better climber than just about anyone taking part in the TDF, ands a bunch of other top Italian, Spanish and even South american riders.

So im guessing what you mean by "field not compelling" was that it had no Andy Schleck because other than that it had riders who are among the best in the world. (some did this, some - Samu Basso Evans, do the Tour) but it was a quality field.

I think that is basically true. But Geox's surprising ommission probably messed with Menchov's preparation as with Sastre also in the team, you would have thought multiple grand tour victories would have been enough to get them an invitation. Apart from the winner, would any of the top 5 five from the Giro finished in the top 5 at last year's TDF. I don't think so but not because of a lack of talent but just ordinary form. Rujano and Anton showed glimpses, Menchov was ordinary, Nibali was disappointing as was Rodriguez and the fact that Gadret finished in fourth in his best result ever in a grand tour, makes me wonder. Not that he did not deserve it. None of Contador's opposition showed consistency, day in and day out. If they can't do that, there is no way they will challenge Contador who does everything well. Obviously Contador was also the one that coped best with the course over three weeks. For the other's it was too much. Expect a backlash after all of the talk and see a much duller route next year especially if Zomegnan is not involved.

 

[Epicycle]

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Ah, so you aren't one of the "they all or nearly all dope" posters. Sorry about the confusion.



What makes you think that?

Which one? I'll answer both.

Previously, I think Contador was managed by the unscrupulous Manolo Saiz. I don't think he's stupid. I think he realized what he had in Contador and LL Sanchez. They are both tremendous talents, and, with the right medical program, could be virtually unbeatable.

Then, I think Contador rode under Bruyneel, who rivals Saiz and Jabba the Hutt in ethical deficiency. I don't know the details, but the circumstantial evidence isn't encouraging.

I think we may have seen a clean Contador last year. He struggled several times and was not on superb form. He was dropped at the Criterium International on that stage that I think Ferrigo won (I may be wrong here). He was not superb last year. This year he has been much more methodical and more selective. I don't see a stunning performance. Just solid, consistent riding, consistent with a rider who is of Contador's caliber.

Just my take though.

 

[Merckx index]

Contador didn't have a "train" leading him up every climb, charging up the mountains at 28 mph lead by noted non-climbers like George Hincapie.

You don’t seem to understand that this makes Bert’s performance even harder to understand. You’re saying that much of LA’s performance was due not to his pure power, but tactics. Even if you abhor those tactics, you ought to see that they account for a major part of his gap on his rivals. Lacking those tactics, Bert would have to rely more on his own resources than LA.

He didn't blow past his rivals at the bottom of climbs, taking minutes and minutes at a time. Contador's attacks were well-timed and it was more a matter of taking off very close to the mountaintop finishes when the other were already at their limits.

Then how did Bert end up with a time advantage, 6+ minutes, comparable to what LA accomplished on his best Tours? Was someone cooking the books?

Menchov and Sastre are past their sell-by date for grand tours. Rujano was never going to be a serious contender…I don't recall where Scarponi and Niboli ever showed any prowess against Contador, but suddenly for this year's Giro they were talked up like Ullrich and Pantani clones at their best.

I don’t think the strength-of-competition argument is very compelling. Try, e.g., substituting “Mayo” for “Rujano” and Beloki, Hamilton or Vino for Scarponi and Nibali. Ullrich was a major talent whom LA dominated, fair enough. Pantani even at his best could not contend in ITTs, so was not a GC threat if he couldn't go on a long solo escape, which the Postal train ensured was not possible. Basso was just approaching his peak when LA retired.

There are some facts to go on here:

1) Bert tested positive last year, and anyone who buys the claim that it came from contaminated meat either doesn’t understand the evidence, or doesn’t want to. That doesn’t mean he was juiced in the Giro, any more than his shady associations in the past do, but it’s certainly relevant to the discussion.
2) Bert had a power output on several key climbs of well over 6 watts/kg. That is certainly in the range where questions about juicing are valid, if not proven.
3) His margin of victory was over 6 minutes, despite gifting a couple of stages (thus losing bonus seconds) and apparently going easy on others. Plus the queen stage, where he might have gained a lot more time, was altered, removing one of the longest and toughest climbs completely. Since he may start the Tour, it stands to reason he would not dig any deeper than he felt he had to in order to ensure a comfortable margin of victory. Considering all this, he arguably could have won this race by ten minutes if he had really wanted to. I remember the last guy who dominated the Giro to this extent (against a field probably no stronger than this year’s). It was his last GT for a couple of years.
4) I find arguments that Bert has always been a highly talented rider irrelevant. The assumption seems to be that there is a youthful age when we can be sure the rider was not doping, and therefore performance at that time is an indication of his natural capabilities. The fact is we don’t know when any of these riders might have begun juicing.

I think the best argument that Bert is clean--or better, cleaner--is the evidence, from several sources, that the peloton in general is cleaner than in past years (which mostly means, less artificial elevation of HT). All the main players may be less enhanced. But there really is no compelling evidence or particular reason to believe that Bert or any of his rivals are totally clean. You can't point to anything he did or didn't do in this Giro as a strong case for not doping. Those who are arguing he was clean are mostly pointing out that there is no absolute proof of doping in any of his performances, that there is always a way of explaining them that is consistent with no doping. Guess what? There always is. That's why we have tests.

If I was a racer, my tactic would be just to follow AC. I think he's one of the smartest riders. He makes really good decisions on the road and always makes a good attack

I guess you didn’t watch the 2009 Tour, or even last year’s. I think the lesson here is that when you are a lot stronger than any of your rivals, any attack will look like a good one, since they can’t respond.

 

[cyclegeek]

This forum is still full of MORONS!

 

[yourwelcome]

I don't see anyone questioning Andy Schleck who races just like LA did.

I seem to remember the Schlecks being 'questioned' here regularly enough.

Especially when they were managed by Rijs, an unashamed posterboy for the riches, fame and long term career that can be yours if you dope cleverly enough.

Regarding Contador, given that people involved in Bruyneel's old teams are apparently unburdening themselves to previously unheard of extents, maybe there's even a small chance we'll hear a few things about AC sooner than expected. Not super likely I guess, but on the other hand it would be one of those things that in hindsight will be considered 'obvious'.

 

[Von Mises]

I don't see a stunning performance. Just solid, consistent riding, consistent with a rider who is of Contador's caliber.

But what exactly is Contador´s caliber? You are admitting yourself that he has probably been doper during hos whole career. How do we know then what is the level of clean or cleanish Contador? How do we know he actually is compared with others?

 

[hrotha]

That's two posts for you that have avoided the question I posed. I'm not trying to start a pillow fight here, so if you're itching for one, search elsewhere.

I'm just curious as to what people see as superhuman from Contador. Several posters, including Berzin and others have addressed this. You have not.

I'm not avoiding the question per se. I was just replying to Berzin because his hypocrisy strikes me as particularly notable. I wasn't participating in the main discussion because honestly I don't think "super-human performances" is a useful way to measure the state of doping in the sport. In a completely clean peloton, the gap between the best and the rest should be bigger, but Contador doesn't have a history that leads me to think he's ever been clean, and therefore even if it looks like he's probably a huge natural talent I can't be completely sure things would be the same in a clean peloton. I was also not comparing Armstrong to Contador, but Berzin to a typical Armstrong fanboy.

If you insist, I'll say Etna came close to being unbelievable, but as I said I don't think that's really the crux of the issue. I see Zinoviev has explained it pretty well already.

 

[Benotti69]

being able to climb like a mountain goat and TT better than guys like Millar is superhuman.

scarponi was on a program, Nibali was on a program and both got beaten by 6+ minutes. Contador done for clen at last years TdF, a Saiz protege, Bruyneel and now Riis!. Did he dope to this win? take your heads out of your _______

 

[sniper]

being able to climb like a mountain goat and TT better than guys like Millar is superhuman.

scarponi was on a program, Nibali was on a program and both got beaten by 6+ minutes. Contador done for clen at last years TdF, a Saiz protege, Bruyneel and now Riis!. Did he dope to this win? take your heads out of your _______

+1


"he'd be foolish to dope now, with the CAS decision pending and all the eyes on him"
yeah right.

 

[luckyboy]

I want to believe what Moose McKnuckles said in the penultimate post on page 3, but I really have no idea why anybody at the top of a GT field would not dope. Maybe the programs are toned down, but Contador wasn't clean and neither were the guys going up mountains with him. It would be beyond my comprehension that big contenders would risk not doping.

But what exactly is Contador´s caliber? You are admitting yourself that he has probably been doper during hos whole career. How do we know then what is the level of clean or cleanish Contador? How do we know he actually is compared with others?

Substitute Contador's name here for Nibali, Scarponi, Menchov, Rodriguez, Basso, Andy, Sanchez etc..... We don't know the clean level of any of these riders.

 

[cyclesoflife]

"Deja Vu, All Over Again" - Yogi Berra

 

[Ferminal]

+1


"he'd be foolish to dope now, with the CAS decision pending and all the eyes on him"
yeah right.

It would look a lot worse if he went in clean and was getting outclimbed by Gadret and Kruijswijk.

 

[rata de sentina]

I wouldn't be surprised if he was clean at this Giro, especially given the current circumstances. I don't think a clean AC would have a lot to fear from from Nibali and Scarponi. If Benotti who claims inside information could please provide details of the the "program" that Scarponi and Nibali are on that'd be great. Doses and days etc would be good, because if they are on a "program" it's not a very good one, because they're a lot slower than past dopers. Thanking you in anticipation....

 

[sniper]

I wouldn't be surprised if he was clean at this Giro, especially given the current circumstances. I don't think a clean AC would have a lot to fear from from Nibali and Scarponi. If Benotti who claims inside information could please provide details of the the "program" that Scarponi and Nibali are on that'd be great. Doses and days etc would be good, because if they are on a "program" it's not a very good one, because they're a lot slower than past dopers. Thanking you in anticipation....

disagree.
Given the circumstances, he'd be foolish to go in clean.

It would look a lot worse if he went in clean and was getting outclimbed by Gadret and Kruijswijk.

exactemundo...