Super-human performances from Contador at Giro?

[Angliru]

its the fashion in which he beats the others

The consensus argument was that people couldn't understand why Contador was being thought of as a potential all-time great (using Armstrong as a barometer) because of the closeness of his grand tour wins. This usually conveniently leaves out the 2009 Tour win since it tends to contradict this argument. So now he wins a mountainous Giro by 6 minutes and now he's "superhuman"?

 

[Le breton]

What really comes into question is how he never had a bad day. .........

How do you know? Have you ever raced on a bad day? You just dig a bit deeper and hang on as long as you can, sometimes it's enough, sometimes it isn't.
Contador said he didn't feel so good on some stage, before Etna I believe.
The fact that he didn't lose contact with his main contenders does not mean he wasn't on the verge of collapse one day or another.

 

[pmcg76]

I have seen it mentioned on this thread quite frequently that Contador never had a bad day at the Giro, yet I gurantee 100% that if he had a bad day and then came back to his normal level, a lot of the people who have been using no bad days as proof of doping would be screaming definite blood refill. In 2008 Contador didnt have any particularly bad days but neither was he outstanding that year, was that because he wasnt doped because he sure beat a lot of dopers that year?

Just look at Landis in the 2006 Tour, exploded one day and then that amazing ride the following day. Everyone was calling it ridiculous. Quite simply there is nothing Contador or may other pros can do to appease those who believe they are definitely doped. Only Contador losing would likely satisfy and then the same people would be screaming about whoever beat Contador, the line would be, OMG he beat Contador, definitely doped to the gills.

Contador has been the best GT rider of his generation whether that is due to doping or not but how many of his rivals do people believe are clean. Coming into this Giro, did anyone expect Contador to lose or who were viewed as his chief rivals, nobody I dont think. The question was how much would Contador win by which was quite significant for sure but there were huge margins in GT wins before the introduction of EPO also.

I also see people stating that they wont watch the Tour because he should be banned, what? do people honestly believe the Schlecks, JVDB and many others are clean or something. Perhaps he should be banned but that doesnt mean the Tour will be any better, just substitute Schleck dominance for Contador so another doper dominating then.

I am not for one second advocating that Contador is somehow clean or innocent of his crimes, I just find all this 'evidence' of doping pointless as there is nothing Contador can do to make people believe he was doing it cleany, therefore its pointless to try and use any performances as evidence.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

I certainly wasn't making the implication because frankly, with or without doping, I think the statement is true.

But your thought is only a blind belief if Contador has been doped since he entered the pro ranks. If that's the case, and I'm not saying it necessarily is, then you would have absolutely no way of knowing whether he could beat any prominent GC rider clean.

Doping does not have the same effect for everyone. Some it helps a little, some a lot, and some it completely transforms. You cannot assume that the same pecking order would exist with and without doping.

 

[peloton]

I have seen it mentioned on this thread quite frequently that Contador never had a bad day at the Giro, yet I gurantee 100% that if he had a bad day and then came back to his normal level, a lot of the people who have been using no bad days as proof of doping would be screaming definite blood refill. In 2008 Contador didnt have any particularly bad days but neither was he outstanding that year, was that because he wasnt doped because he sure beat a lot of dopers that year?

Just look at Landis in the 2006 Tour, exploded one day and then that amazing ride the following day. Everyone was calling it ridiculous. Quite simply there is nothing Contador or may other pros can do to appease those who believe they are definitely doped. Only Contador losing would likely satisfy and then the same people would be screaming about whoever beat Contador, the line would be, OMG he beat Contador, definitely doped to the gills.

Contador has been the best GT rider of his generation whether that is due to doping or not but how many of his rivals do people believe are clean. Coming into this Giro, did anyone expect Contador to lose or who were viewed as his chief rivals, nobody I dont think. The question was how much would Contador win by which was quite significant for sure but there were huge margins in GT wins before the introduction of EPO also.

I also see people stating that they wont watch the Tour because he should be banned, what? do people honestly believe the Schlecks, JVDB and many others are clean or something. Perhaps he should be banned but that doesnt mean the Tour will be any better, just substitute Schleck dominance for Contador so another doper dominating then.

I am not for one second advocating that Contador is somehow clean or innocent of his crimes, I just find all this 'evidence' of doping pointless as there is nothing Contador can do to make people believe he was doing it cleany, therefore its pointless to try and use any performances as evidence.

+1

well said

 

[Publicus]

But your thought is only a blind belief if Contador has been doped since he entered the pro ranks. If that's the case, and I'm not saying it necessarily is, then you would have absolutely no way of knowing whether he could beat any prominent GC rider clean.

Doping does not have the same effect for everyone. Some it helps a little, some a lot, and some it completely transforms. You cannot assume that the same pecking order would exist with and without doping.

I can't possible know or control for all of the possible permutations that are involved with the doping discussions (who is or who isn't, and if they are, are they the only one, and if others are, is this individual an average, super or super duper responder), so I chose to treat it like economist treat discussions about GDP (in the absence of objective evidence to the contrary): I assume all things being equal, everyone is on the same program, and talent is the controlling feature. You may disagree with my approach, which is your right, but I think it makes it easier than to let myself get caught in a neverending loop of whether this or that peformance is a function of an average responder versus a clean rider or a clean rider vs a super-duper responder.

EDIT: +1 on pmcg76's comment above.

 

[inri2000]

I can't possible know or control for all of the possible permutations that are involved with the doping discussions (who is or who isn't, and if they are, are they the only one, and if others are, is this individual an average, super or super duper responder), so I chose to treat it like economist treat discussions about GDP (in the absence of objective evidence to the contrary): I assume all things being equal, everyone is on the same program, and talent is the controlling feature. You may disagree with my approach, which is your right, but I think it makes it easier than to let myself get caught in a neverending loop of whether this or that peformance is a function of an average responder versus a clean rider or a clean rider vs a super-duper responder.

EDIT: +1 on pmcg76's comment above.

Unforunately objectivity will get you nowhere with some people, but good luck anyway.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

I assume all things being equal, everyone is on the same program, and talent is the controlling feature. You may disagree with my approach, which is your right, but I think it makes it easier

Sure, it's a whole lot easier to accept things you have no rational basis for believing on faith.

You'll even get called "rational" by people like our friend above who find uncertainty difficult to deal with.

 

[inri2000]

Sure, it's a whole lot easier to accept things you have no rational basis for believing on faith.

You'll even get called "rational" by people like our friend above who find uncertainty difficult to deal with.

Just admit that you're a hater, and move on. Life is too short for conspiracy theories, especially if they are not associated with the death of other human beings.

 

[indurain666]

Well said. Contador's season building up to this race was different than what he's done in the past. Normally he would get really fit for early races like Paris-Nice and Pais Vasco, then take a ten day vacation before training for the Tour. This year he, with guidance from Riis, held back on gaining fitness, avoided tougher UCI events, spaced races, sacrificed dominance, and built everything towards the Giro. In 2010 when he rode Fleche Wallonne, he was just past his early peak. This year he was no place near peaking. He did recon on the key stages, and tested different equipment, which resulted in his bike changes before mountain finishes.

This is what a 28 year old Contador looks like. He can win a seventh grand tour at a younger age than the Texan was when he won his second. This guy is a bike racer. Personally, with so many people saying he shouldn't be allowed to ride the Tour, I hope he blows it off. If he can't recover quickly enough to be well prepared, and would end up like Basso and so many others, I'd like him to change things up. He can take a well deserved vacation, since he has been through Hell since the end of August. Then he can start another gradual build up to be perfectly prepared for a tough Vuelta, and a serious attempt at Worlds.

The guy was in the pink jersey for thirteen days, guaranteeing anti-doping tests. If they did rest days, they've probably got at least fifteen days straight. The UCI is trying to win 3 million Euros of his salary from 2010, and a bust now could effectively win the arbitration, plus maybe 3 million more Euros from this year. WADA is desperate to win, so I'd imagine his samples are being tested for everything, and the guys with the fine tooth combs are going over his Bio Passport. But he dominated. He was at a different level from Nibali & Scarponi.

What are people going to say if CAS declares him innocent? Or if he takes it to Swiss courts? It's about 5 trillionths of a gram of Clenbuterol, the absence of a threshold, and Strict Liability, which is about as fair a law as Saudi women not being allowed to drive.

I witnessed three weeks of greatness and professionalism. I don't know what some of you saw instead.

What are people going to say of CAS declares him innocent?

+1, amen. He got tested a million times during this Giro and he did not test positive for anything. At the same time, his level of fitness was even better than last year's tour, anyone with an IQ higher than 100 can figure it out what that means...yes the 50 picograms of clen did nothing...

I am personally very happy CAS delayed the hearing. Despite being a bureaucratic and stupid decision, we all know they are going to suspend him for a least one year. Now he has the opportunity to race the TDF as he is still a free man and kick some ***

Schleck and Scarponi knows those jerseys mean nothing if you don't beat the guy on the road...even worse its going to be for Schleck if Alberto beats him again without any test results anomalies...seeing Alberto's fitness at this year's Giro and Tour 09, it is actually a very likely scenario.

As much as it hurts the haters: we all know Alberto is the best cyclist at the moment

 

[Publicus]

Sure, it's a whole lot easier to accept things you have no rational basis for believing on faith.

You'll even get called "rational" by people like our friend above who find uncertainty difficult to deal with.

If I read your response correctly, you've misinterpreted my approach to fit some ill-formed notion (that is implicitly running through your analysis) that I am naive about the existence and the impact of doping in the professional peloton. I'll not bother to explain it further but my approach as explained above is neither born of irrationality or my inability to deal with uncertainty. Quite the opposite actually. But I digress.

Good luck with your permutations!

 

[Maxiton]

Zinoviev Letter says, if I understand correctly, that we have no baseline data for judging where on the curve of native abilities we will find Contador because we don't know when he began doping or to what extent. (Implied is that it seems reasonable to assume Contador was an early adopter of the old medical assist - given especially his association with Manolo Saiz). Publicus counters that precisely because we don't know, and can't, we must judge Contador as a rider based on his performances against his contemporaries (about whom we also know next to nothing).

To me, this debate sums up where we are in cycling and why doping degrades the sport - not only the participant but also the fan. Because both of these guys is right, and even the cyclists themselves can't be sure of what things would look like, or where they'd really stand in their sport, in the absence of medical cheating. And we the fans are reduced to watching something we can't fully enjoy because we have no idea of what is real and what comes out of a syringe.

 

[JA.Tri]

Zinoviev Letter says, if I understand correctly, that we have no baseline data for judging where on the curve of native abilities we will find Contador because we don't know when he began doping or to what extent. (Implied is that it seems reasonable to assume Contador was an early adopter of the old medical assist - given especially his association with Manolo Saiz). Publicus counters that precisely because we don't know, and can't, we must judge Contador as a rider based on his performances against his contemporaries (about whom we also know next to nothing).

To me, this debate sums up where we are in cycling and why doping degrades the sport - not only the participant but also the fan. Because both of these guys is right, and even the cyclists themselves can't be sure of what things would look like, or where they'd really stand in their sport, in the absence of medical cheating. And we the fans are reduced to watching something we can't fully enjoy because we have no idea of what is real and what comes out of a syringe.

Absolutely and bloody frustrating too!

I can enjoy the spectacle however it is, unfortunately, tinged with "who is doped, how much dope" "are these ....

 

[Maxiton]

Absolutely and bloody frustrating too!

I can enjoy the spectacle however it is, unfortunately, tinged with "who is doped, how much dope" "are these ....

+1

Speaking of permutations, I trust you guys will correct me if I've got any of them wrong from your respective theses. Myself, I'm not an absolutist about doping. I think riders should have some medical assistance. But it should be controlled and supervised. The bio-passport is really for this purpose anyway - i.e., dope, just not too much. The sport needs to eradicate hypocrisy, and right now it rewards it.

Contador is an exciting rider. I enjoy watching him race. It would be nice to think that his legacy won't have a big, fat asterisk attached to it, solely on account of his having come into the sport a brilliant talent but too early or too late.

 

[Von Mises]

But your thought is only a blind belief if Contador has been doped since he entered the pro ranks. If that's the case, and I'm not saying it necessarily is, then you would have absolutely no way of knowing whether he could beat any prominent GC rider clean.

Doping does not have the same effect for everyone. Some it helps a little, some a lot, and some it completely transforms. You cannot assume that the same pecking order would exist with and without doping.

+1

Also, riders are not using same doping programs. I dont know for sure, but it is logical to assume, that those who have more money, more power, better connections, dirtier teams etc, those have also access to better programs and better doctors, state of the art doping regimes. Armstrong was one of those, Contador also clicks in all these areas.

For instance, if I compare Contador and Gadret, they may be both dopers ( I dont know, but for arguments sake, lets assume), but I am pretty sure that Contador has opportunities to have better doctors and better doping programs.

 

[staubsauger]

well come on. Robot basso 2006 was a farce against good competitors as simoni. But alberto? Well everybody here have to know that i really hate him, but actually it isn't his problem that scarponi and nibali are nothing more than *** edited by mod ***. They always have been. If il cobra and franco would have been there and anton and mentsjov would have been on top level it wouldn't have been that easy for berti. But scarponi and nibali come on alberto laughed about them when they were telling they want to beat him.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I think we all understand uncertainty. The point of this thread was to identify factors that can resolve, at least in part, that uncertainty. Is there any evidence of a superhuman feat, or a feat that would be impossible without some medical assistance? So far, the answer has been no.

Are we surprised that Contador's performance is on the borderline? Of course not, he's physically at the top of the pecking order. Remember the Outside magazine article from 2004 citing Saiz' watts testing of Contador and LL Sanchez? These guys are very talented athletes.

We're not talking about donkeys turned racehorses here. I think the idea is, even given Contador's athletic ability, is there any evidence of something that defies belief?

Having a bad day is not the sine qua non of clean cycling. That's absolutely preposterous, and as pcmg76 already pointed out, the Landis affair highlighted that quite clearly.

 

[happychappy]

Super-awesome performances from Contador at Giro more like it!

Having a bad day is not the sine qua non of clean cycling. That's absolutely preposterous, and as pcmg76 already pointed out, the Landis affair highlighted that quite clearly.

Didn't he write a book about how he didn't dope in 2006?

 

[Publicus]

I think we all understand uncertainty. The point of this thread was to identify factors that can resolve, at least in part, that uncertainty. Is there any evidence of a superhuman feat, or a feat that would be impossible without some medical assistance? So far, the answer has been no.

Are we surprised that Contador's performance is on the borderline? Of course not, he's physically at the top of the pecking order. Remember the Outside magazine article from 2004 citing Saiz' watts testing of Contador and LL Sanchez? These guys are very talented athletes.

We're not talking about donkeys turned racehorses here. I think the idea is, even given Contador's athletic ability, is there any evidence of something that defies belief?

Having a bad day is not the sine qua non of clean cycling. That's absolutely preposterous, and as pcmg76 already pointed out, the Landis affair highlighted that quite clearly.

All winning performances are either superhuman performances or average human performances. Or neither. Or both.