Who's dirtier, contador or the sky guys?

[sartoris]

Ok, guys. Let's give vent to our frustrations and once and for all let's make it clear for the whole wold to see who is dirtier. Coming from the CyclingNews Forums and from real cycling connoisseurs like us, the verdict will be undisputed !!

And my vote goes to....... The Sky Bros.!!!!

 

[Catwhoorg]

AC has actually tested positive.

Thats more than the entirety of the Sky Team

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Still 50/50...

Anyway, that was easy. AC three times convicted of doping (twice blood, once clen). Froome/Sky still zero...

 

[sartoris]

Still 50/50...

Anyway, that was easy. AC three times convicted of doping (twice blood, once clen). Froome/Sky still zero...

Freudian slip. That's what it's called.

 

[learn to ride]

Sky (Wiggis, Froom, Porte, Rogers..)

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Freudian slip. That's what it's called.

No, no, it was intentionally. I trust no one since the once-in-a-lifetime rider had to dope heavy to keep up...

 

[Kender]

contador implicated in doping clinics and has a doping positive.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Tough question...

I know Inigo San Millan always told me that Contador was the most gifted cyclist ever tested

Compared to Froome, who showed his GT winning potential when he climbed like Johan Van Summeren that one time in 2008.

Guess I'll have to go with UK Postal.

 

[Kender]

skyhate winning over facts of the case atm heh. i'm not saying sky are clean, just that there is evidence that contador doped

 

[Ferminal]

Contador 2007 > Sky 2011/2012 > Contador 2011/2012.

In absolute, not relative terms...

 

[hrotha]

skyhate winning over facts of the case atm heh. i'm not saying sky are clean, just that there is evidence that contador doped

I assume both Sky and Contador are doping. On that basis, since Contador has never had a comparable performance jump, much less one that was shared by his key teammates (and those are facts), I have to conclude that Sky is dirtier.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I assume both Sky and Contador are doping. On that basis, since Contador has never had a comparable performance jump, much less one that was shared by his key teammates (and those are facts), I have to conclude that Sky is dirtier.

Well, that might be b/c AC was blood doping from the beginning (see Fuentes link) with very dirty teams, while Froome was with a "poor" team which may had not enough money for a team wide program.

 

[hrotha]

Well, that might be b/c AC was blood doping from the beginning (see Fuentes link) with very dirty teams, while Froome was with a "poor" team which may had not enough money for a team wide program.

Maybe, but then, Contador was getting results since long before turning pro, and Froome was already with Sky in 2010. Barloworld doesn't have a good reputation regarding doping anyway, and it wasn't a small team, they rode several Tours and Giros.

 

[veganrob]

I assume both Sky and Contador are doping. On that basis, since Contador has never had a comparable performance jump, much less one that was shared by his key teammates (and those are facts), I have to conclude that Sky is dirtier.

Yep. While AC has had some "holy crap" moments, he has been very consistent following his whole career trajectory. Sky on the other has been totally in your face ridiculous. They are filthy.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Maybe, but then, Contador was getting results since long before turning pro, and Froome was already with Sky in 2010. Barloworld doesn't have a good reputation regarding doping anyway, and it wasn't a small team, they rode several Tours and Giros.

Not to mention the Fuentes link is a bit sketchy and he wasn't accused of using anything heavier than test by Franke who claimed to have seen the evidence.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Maybe, but then, Contador was getting results since long before turning pro, and Froome was already with Sky in 2010. Barloworld doesn't have a good reputation regarding doping anyway, and it wasn't a small team, they rode several Tours and Giros.

... as wild cards. Anyway, i assume there was not as much money at Barloworld as on the big program teams.
And we don´t know how early they dope their kids in Spain. Maybe AC is like Pantani: high tech doped from the very beginning, while Froome was living differently in Africa. I don´t know if cyclists risked HIV to gain some spots on obscure races with minimal prize money there.

After all, we can´t judge who the better talent is. So for now i go with what i have: AC as a serious blood doper and an Armstrong like behaviour (ongoing lying with a straight face), Froome with no positives yet.

 

[Altitude]

Sky has the much more sophisticated and effective program. Look what they've done with Froome for christ sake. Before last years Vuelta he was a legit nobody. If they wanted they could turn Porte and Rogers into grand tour contenders too.

 

[hrotha]

Not to mention the Fuentes link is a bit sketchy and he wasn't accused of using anything heavier than test by Franke who claimed to have seen the evidence.

Well, I'd say the Fuentes link is pretty strong.

... as wild cards. Anyway, i assume there was not as much money at Barloworld as on the big program teams.
And we don´t know how early they dope their kids in Spain. Maybe AC is like Pantani: high tech doped from the very beginning, while Froome was living differently in Africa. I don´t know if cyclists risked HIV to gain some spots on obscure races with minimal prize money there.

After all, we can´t judge who the better talent is. So for now i go with what i have: AC as a serious blood doper and an Armstrong like behaviour (ongoing lying with a straight face), Froome with no positives yet.

As wild cards, yes, but they kept being invited, because they were a good team, not some sort of poor team with no resources.

Pantani wasn't high tech doped from the very beginning, unless you ignore his brilliant amateur career from before EPO was available to more than a few pioneers. So yes, I suppose you could compare him to Contador, in that both showed to be huge talents early on. Unlike Froome.

Contador is a doper, and a huge liar, but think of how he was caught: his positive was covered up, then leaked by the lab, and it involved a tiny amount of clen that most labs wouldn't have picked up. In other words, had he been 1% luckier we wouldn't have heard anything. At the same time, many notorious dopers never tested positive. The barrier between testing positive and never testing positive is not as significant as you make it out to be.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Well, I'd say the Fuentes link is pretty strong.

As wild cards, yes, but they kept being invited, because they were a good team, not some sort of poor team with no resources.

Pantani wasn't high tech doped from the very beginning, unless you ignore his brilliant amateur career from before EPO was available to more than a few pioneers. So yes, I suppose you could compare him to Contador, in that both showed to be huge talents early on. Unlike Froome.

Contador is a doper, and a huge liar, but think of how he was caught: his positive was covered up, then leaked by the lab, and it involved a tiny amount of clen that most labs wouldn't have picked up. In other words, had he been 1% luckier we wouldn't have heard anything. At the same time, many notorious dopers never tested positive. The barrier between testing positive and never testing positive is not as significant as you make it out to be.

I never followed Pantani much (i stopped following cycling at 1990 and only came back in 96/97), but podium cafe opened my eyes. Since then i am sure that Pantani was doped up from (at least) the second he stepped onto the pro scene.

I think AC was due. While some Fuentes clients were basically banned for life, guys like him and Valv were still allowed to make millions. It was the worst time in cycling. Even the mid 90s were better. Everybody was more or less on the same (dirty) level. After Festina it was pure luck and corruption deciding a career. I was in deep anger when i saw the lying faces of Pharmstrong, Valve and AC winning races while the scapegoats who were born in the wrong country got thrown in the dust bin.
Now we finally see justice: AC gone after the 3rd time, Valve got his ban too (& also is still lying), DiLuca got caught, and now hopefully justice will be made to the last man standing. Soon i can relax...

 

[The Hitch]

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.

 

[The Hitch]

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?

 

[D-Queued]

I like how the voting is close so far...

Another opportunity for a multiple choice poll.

Dave.

 

[Kender]

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?

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

 

[The Death Merchant]

Well, that might be b/c AC was blood doping from the beginning (see Fuentes link) with very dirty teams, while Froome was with a "poor" team which may had not enough money for a team wide program.

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.

 

[the sceptic]

How is passing tests related to level of dirtiness?