Who's dirtier, contador or the sky guys?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

WHO'S DIRTIER, CONTADOR OR THE SKY GUYS?

  • THE SKY GUYS

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Kender said:
just like armstrong right? marion jones? riis? zabel?

edit ps. besides, surely you mean sky passing all the tests right? after all, contador failed one sky hasn't.

my vote was purely based on fact. does that mean i believe sky is clean? no it doesn't. there needed to be option 3. all of the above
No i.meant how is contador passing all these tests in giro vuelta eneco tour09, though i was referring more to those who argue that wiggins is clean based on not falling a test rather than all those who voted contador so i probably shouldn't have put it in this thread.
 
Jul 6, 2012
223
0
0
This should have had more options, but I'm going for Dirtie mainly on the fact that I have yet to see Wiggins et al playing rocket speed yo-yo cycling up vertical walls for fun vs. Rasmussen.

I have huge huge doubts of them, but as yet none of them have been implicated in Puerto and had handy government backing out of it, been banned from GTs, had wins stripped, been banned, had plasticizers in samples, etc.

I'm not saying it's not something in their future, but with the limited options, just backing up my vote.

EDIT: just seen merchant's post. That.
 
May 19, 2011
4,857
1
0
Ferminal said:
Contador 2007 > Sky 2011/2012 > Contador 2011/2012.

In absolute, not relative terms...
well reasoned, but I think we are voting on 2012 situation if I am not mistaken
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
The Death Merchant said:
Exactly. IMO Contadoper has always been on a premium juicing program. He's never been clean. AC is right there with Lance when it comes to clean. Froome has only recently been given access to proper doping.
Welcome. Agree 100%. :)
Only one more thing to mention: Maybe both are clean(ish) at this vuelta. I would like to see the final numbers of Tucker after the Vuelta. If AC is way down & on a level with Froome, i can assume both are talented the same. I wouldn´t doubt Froome more than i do now*. It would just show once more what we already assume: That AC was dirty from the very beginning.

* I guess Sky is either micro dosing and/or bending the rules to the max. Not all PED´s are banned.

Edit: Wasn´t the real copyright name "Contradoper"?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Koba80 said:
This should have had more options, but I'm going for Dirtie mainly on the fact that I have yet to see Wiggins et al playing rocket speed yo-yo cycling up vertical walls for fun vs. Rasmussen.

I have huge huge doubts of them, but as yet none of them have been implicated in Puerto and had handy government backing out of it, been banned from GTs, had wins stripped, been banned, had plasticizers in samples, etc.

I'm not saying it's not something in their future, but with the limited options, just backing up my vote.

EDIT: just seen merchant's post. That.
Another well reasoned post. It´s just unbelievebale that once Pharmstrong is (almost) gone, the next big liar gets hailed. AC is no inch better than Pharmstrong. The same denying behaviour, the same absurd performances (battle w/Chicken, Verbier), the same long dragging lawsuits, the same dirty DSes and teams...
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
If Froome has always been one of the most talented guys in the peloton then what the hell was he doing before 2011 vuelta?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Being like De Gendt. A no show at CG standings. That can be b/c of doping or the lack of, or various other reasons. Just go back a little in this and "Froome´s" thread...
 
Jul 6, 2012
223
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
It´s just unbelievebale that once Pharmstrong is (almost) gone, the next big liar gets hailed. AC is no inch better than Pharmstrong. The same denying behaviour, the same absurd performances (battle w/Chicken, Verbier), the same long dragging lawsuits, the same dirty DSes and teams...
Exactly. If you get Russian/Slavic, a nice new name for AC would be Dvarmstrong.
 
hrotha said:
The barrier between testing positive and never testing positive is not as significant as you make it out to be.
This cannot be over emphasized enough.

Most of the tests require some skill and experience to read with skill. Even then, WADA certified lab results vary. And the results aren't true/false. The results fall on a scale from negative, to suspicious, to positive.

A suspicious could be a positive, but always reported as a negative to aggressively minimize false positives. This is where the longitudinal tracking of the passport works, but the federation doesn't actually want that.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
The Hitch said:
The answer can be found in Richie Porte. Rides for evil laberatory on wheels Contador, cant make it over a hill. Rides for the frontline of the fight against doping, makes a amazing transformation that coincidentally is also made by his 3 main teammates, and owns all in the mountains.
Sheet bro, them gains is marginal.


the asian said:
Agree with this.
So do I. AC on hog juice was amazing, he and AS seemed to tone it down a bit after 2010, while Sky are a joke this year.
 
After unrepentant doper Vinokorov won Olympic gold, we now have unrepentant dopers Contador and Valverde fighting it out with Vroome Froome at the Vuelta - which is probably the biggest dopefest of the cycling year. The poll question seems redundant in this context.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
hrotha said:
Well, I'd say the Fuentes link is pretty strong.
We have the name on the bag and the broad involvement of his team. Clearly a strong link.

But to call it convincing evidence you need to do a DNA test. We can go back and forth about this one, but even though we know he's most likely involved, we can't proof it.

On a side note to foxy: I find the idea that his ban was a belated punishment for Puerto abhorrent and I'm surprised you are so happy about it.

You can't just use the judicial system as revenge just because you can't close a case. It's really a travesty of justice.

Now on that case itself:

the Athlete's positive test for clenbuterol is more likely to have been caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement than by a blood transfusion or the ingestion of contaminated meat;
He got two years because his food supplements are his own responsibility, which actually makes it clear that even if the contaminated beef defense would have been upheld it wouldn't matter, he would get the sanction either way.

I personally find a minute trace (400 times under Wada detection protocol) and contaminated supplies verdict hard to match with a two year blanket ban (and the backdating is a complete farce of the sport).

To me it seems everyone had to get even with AC. And for that reason I'm fully supportive of AC. Abuse of justice is a far greater crime than using a contaminated supplement.
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
For now I'd have to go with Contador. That guy even missed the Tour of 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2011 because of his own doping abuse and the dirtyness of the teams he rides for.

Froome and Wiggins are obviously doping as well, but at this point that's only inferred on the basis on unlikely jumps in performance. Now it's extremely unlikely that this has a benign explanation, but it's at least possible. Contador being clean isn't.
 
I think Contador not doping because he fears the system is out to get him (and no second chances this time) is as plausible as any reasons for Sky not doping.

And if one isn't doping it means it's very possible the other isn't (and likewise, if one is doping...).

As far as we know Contador seems to run an individual program, whereas Sky it looks more like several riders are involved.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,384
0
0
The Hitch said:
It would be interesting to see those voting Contador explain how he is passing all the tests now. Afterall if you pass the tests you are clean right?
Which makes the question moot really, doesn't it?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Ferminal said:
I think Contador not doping because he fears the system is out to get him (and no second chances this time) is as plausible as any reasons for Sky not doping.

And if one isn't doping it means it's very possible the other isn't (and likewise, if one is doping...).

As far as we know Contador seems to run an individual program, whereas Sky it looks more like several riders are involved.
+1

Agree it's likely to be an individual vs. team regime.
Though Riis strikes me as a man who'd like to know and monitor what his rider is doing. Vice-versa, Contador would be unwise not to draw on Riis' elaborate first-hand experience.

also agree both camps are extremely weary of not getting caught now as the consequences would be devastating to both.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
I don't know. Probably we'll know one time on what Sky have ridden for the last 2 seasons and then be able to make a conclusion because there's no guarantee that something Sky are using now gives a lesser effect than tranfusions that Contador used to practise in 2007.
 
Jun 6, 2010
7
0
0
Who is dirtier!

Well, the biggest growth of use of PEDs is amongst the amateur sector,and in particular the master class. It takes only about 500€/600USD a month to put you on the podium if you're a decent rider. And so the question, although framed incorrectly would mean that you and I ( assuming you're a rider and knows one end of a bike from another) are the dirtier ones. Woohoo!!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS