The thing is the OP isn't even related to doping per se. More as Alberto Contador standing up to the UCI and Armstrong and a crony cycling hegemony.
So I won't argue the doping points as they're not really the major thrust of this argument. The primary point of the OP is I think in these 2 paragraphs...
Now this Spanish boy who had always kept his head down and followed orders faced a true dilemma. What is a champion to do when cycling's capo dei capi, the UCI's own favored son, Verbruggen and Pat's best partner, and BFF of his own team manager, comes back determined to usurp the young champion's role, which the capo dei capi feels is rightfully his and his alone? If the Spanish boy knuckles under he concedes to himself and everyone watching that the champions' role was never truly his and never can be. But if he defies the bosses he has a very clear inkling, this son of cycling, of what's in store.
Well, we know how he responded and how the story played out. We know he won that Tour and how, subsequently, the next year, his blood sample was sent off for extra-special, extraordinary scrutiny - which turned up one one-millionth of a gram of clenbuterol, a controlled substance. And so he was duly sanctioned.
I think the flaw in this argument is that it completely ignores an already established history that Contador had with UCI/TDF/Verbruggen and Pat.
In 2006 Contador was barred from competing in the Tour de France.
In 2008, despite being the defending champion Contador's team Astana was again barred from competing in the Tour de France. Even though it was a decision to ban the entire team from competition and the ban itself was unrelated to anything Contador did in the year before (as he wasn't on the team then) the ban itself wasn't levied until early 2008, when Contador was on the team. So at the time the ban happened the UCI knew full well they would be forcing the defending champion of the Tour out of the race.
So our Son of Cycling and Young Champion already had a very negative relationship with the Tour de France and it's organizers. This Spanish boy as the OP frames him wasn't some fresh faced innocent with no prior relationship with the UCI coming in to 2009. It could be argued he was already persona non grata with the heads of the Tour de France.
Going back to the year 2008 (a year before Contador became cycling's one true champion), after being banned from the Tour Contador went forth and won both the Giro and the Vuelta. Which was impressive and the mark of a truly gifted cyclist. It launched him into the stratosphere and put him up there with some truly great names as he put himself on 2 lists; those who've won the Giro/Vuelta double, and those who've won all 3 Grand Tours. So in 2008 Contador had already become one of the all time greats.
This is why the OP is wrong. Because it frames Contador as having 2 roads before him in 2009.
1. "knuckle under" and intentionally lose to Armstrong to remain in the UCI's good graces.
2. Throw caution to the wind, and possibly ruin his career by standing up to the big bad UCI.
Both of those are incorrect.
Number 1 is incorrect because as I mentioned before he was already kind of hated by the powers that be. They'd banned him from competing in the Tour 2 of the last 3 years and that was sandwiched around him actually winning the Tour de France. They already didn't like him, so he basically had no reason to knuckle under, as far as he and Tour were concerned their relationship was already at bottom.
Number 2 is incorrect because the year before, when the Tour had already banned him from competing, he went on to pull off the double, basically putting his thumb in the eye of the TDF, saying "I don't need your tour to be great. I'm already great." He'd already shown in the prior year that he could be famous and well loved and be a champion on his own terms, without the Tour de France. So why in 2009 after he'd already proven that would he be overly concerned with them ruining his career? He was above their ability to ruin, as I think he's proven.
The final point I would make is I think we're setting the bar really low for our "One True Champion". The OP seems to suggest that Contador is a legend because he did not intentionally lose the Tour de France. I think placed in the same position most riders would behave as he did. There are a number of reasons why Contador should be considered a great cyclist and champion. Him not intentionally losing a bike race out of fear of reprisal is not one of them. Particularly when you look at everything he's done since 2009. I can't point to a single example of him casting down the powers that be in cycling or doing anything other than competing in bike races and remaining relatively quiet and mostly keeping to himself.
Final note: He was unfairly scrutinized and singled out in 2010, whether this was a direct result of 2009 or part of a continuing trend of the Tour de France organizers trying to ban Contador from competing every other year I can't say, but I don't think it negates anything else I've said in this post.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram