Why Alberto Contador is Cycling's One True Champion

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

I think you are right, But why was the thread started in the Clinic at all if posters are not to have free reign to express the wide diversity of opinions (as they did)? Is it because he can neither be admired nor criticised without the issue of doping coming into it at every turn?

Of course posters are free to express their opinions. Maxiton opened this thread to invite discussion on this topic. The problem was, as Irondan pointed out, that several posters who did not agree with Maxiton's statement tried to instigate chaos by, for example, deliberately misrepresenting other posters' opinions, and they succeeded, the thread turned into a mess of endless bickering.
As for your second point, of course a discussion on his position in the history of cycling will always involve doping in some way or another.

Yes, I do wish people would not bicker. It is one of the things that discourages me from greater participation. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect. i hope this thread that you like will go better for you. But there is the question as to how people who disagree with the proposition can do so without allegedly derailing the thread. After all, the proposition that "Contador is not Cycling's One True Champion" would be off topic.

Not at all. You can say, no, here is another rider who is the true champion, and here's why; or, you can say cycling has no champion because all the winners are doping; or, you can say cycling isn't even a sport anymore because of all the cheating and manipulation, so obviously there can be no champion - champion of what? But in any case putting forth the argument that Contador is not the one true champion of contemporary cycling is very much on topic.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

I think you are right, But why was the thread started in the Clinic at all if posters are not to have free reign to express the wide diversity of opinions (as they did)? Is it because he can neither be admired nor criticised without the issue of doping coming into it at every turn?

Of course posters are free to express their opinions. Maxiton opened this thread to invite discussion on this topic. The problem was, as Irondan pointed out, that several posters who did not agree with Maxiton's statement tried to instigate chaos by, for example, deliberately misrepresenting other posters' opinions, and they succeeded, the thread turned into a mess of endless bickering.
As for your second point, of course a discussion on his position in the history of cycling will always involve doping in some way or another.

Yes, I do wish people would not bicker. It is one of the things that discourages me from greater participation. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect. i hope this thread that you like will go better for you. But there is the question as to how people who disagree with the proposition can do so without allegedly derailing the thread. After all, the proposition that "Contador is not Cycling's One True Champion" would be off topic.

They will do so with full knowledge that there will surely be action taken by mods for participating in the derailment of the thread.

Cheers

 

[StryderHells]

Re:

Why Alberto is a true cycling champion - my opinion:
Very hard to dislike as a person. Humble, cautious, soft-spoken, friendly, smiley, knows when to keep his mouth shut, talks with his legs but is also incredibly stubborn and hard to persuade. Rides with his heart. Panache in abundance. Has had great successes but also setbacks and has overcome adversity. A great ambassador for the sport ignoring his doping history.

But the fact that he has/does dope surely means that he is a terrible ambassador for the sport, I can't see how one can be good for the sport if they continue to treat it with such contempt

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Why Alberto is a true cycling champion - my opinion:
Very hard to dislike as a person. Humble, cautious, soft-spoken, friendly, smiley, knows when to keep his mouth shut, talks with his legs but is also incredibly stubborn and hard to persuade. Rides with his heart. Panache in abundance. Has had great successes but also setbacks and has overcome adversity. A great ambassador for the sport ignoring his doping history.

But the fact that he has/does dope surely means that he is a terrible ambassador for the sport, I can't see how one can be good for the sport if they continue to treat it with such contempt

He can be a great ambassador if you accept doping is inherently rooted in professional sport.

 

[StryderHells]

Re: Re:

Why Alberto is a true cycling champion - my opinion:
Very hard to dislike as a person. Humble, cautious, soft-spoken, friendly, smiley, knows when to keep his mouth shut, talks with his legs but is also incredibly stubborn and hard to persuade. Rides with his heart. Panache in abundance. Has had great successes but also setbacks and has overcome adversity. A great ambassador for the sport ignoring his doping history.

But the fact that he has/does dope surely means that he is a terrible ambassador for the sport, I can't see how one can be good for the sport if they continue to treat it with such contempt

He can be a great ambassador if you accept doping is inherently rooted in professional sport.

I understand that and all pro sports are riddled with doping but that doesn't change the fact that he is a poor excuse of an ambassador for cycling

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I understand that and all pro sports are riddled with doping but that doesn't change the fact that he is a poor excuse of an ambassador for cycling

It is obviously a matter of opinion I explained why I (and probably others) think he is a true champion, I can understand others will disagree

 

[doperhopper]

And we're back to the old question: how to place riders into their proper boxes - those whose the only superpower was juice (chiappuccis of this world like Rijs) and others that rode more on talent than juice (that's where IHMO Contador belongs)... obviously, there's this obscure category of those riding purely on talent that many fans of"champions" willingly neglect (victims of the system like Delion or Bassons)

and then there's also a category of those whose "engine was always there" (that will be properly discussed in five years)

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

Any tinfoil hat theories about Li Fuyu's clen positive in April 2010?
He was riding for Bruyneel at the time.

I though of this as it doesn't seem to sit quite well with the hypothesis that AC's clen positive was a Lance-instigated UCI payback.

I've got some ideas about it. China has a serious problem with clenbuterol in its livestock, especially pork. Here's an article about it from the NPR website:

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/04/29/135839397/tainted-pork-is-latest-food-safety-scandal-in-china

This particular food safety problem wasn't common knowledge when Li Fuyu had his clen positive. Nor is China the only country with this problem. Clenbuterol in food production is effectively controlled for within the EU (thus minimizing the effectiveness of Alberto's excuse), but in the rest of the world it's a real problem. It's a problem because use of clenbuterol represents real profits in livestock production. In such a situation, it's unconscionable to have a zero-tolerance policy towards it in what purports to be a world sport. Everyone outside Europe probably carries at least a few molecules of clenbuterol in his bloodstream, but especially people in China.

So with Li Fuyu I see these possibilities:

1) He was actually doping with clenbuterol and got caught. This possibility can't be dismissed, but don't forget he was a Bruyneel rider, and Bruyneel teams are, if nothing else, really expert at doping without getting caught.

2) He effectively controlled for getting caught due to use of clenbuterol, even though he was using it, but in a little twist of fate got popped anyway due to contaminated meat.

3) He actually wasn't doping with clenbuterol but ate contaminated meat. Given what we know about meat in China, this is a distinct possibility.

In any event, it may have been a random positive of the kind the UCI likes, in that he was a minor rider whose bust would serve to show they are serious in their opposition to PEDs while intimidating all other riders and teams.

A more insidious possibility, though, is that it was considerably less random. In this scenario Li Fuyu turning up positive had some strategic purpose behind it on the part of the UCI: it was payback to either Bruyneel or the Chinese cycling federation for some perceived slight, or it was part of the UCI's effort to assert control over the Chinese cycling federation.

Hard to say. But one thing it points up, yet again, is the conflict of interest created by having promotion of the sport coming out of the same body that is supposed to ensure fair play. Fair play and UCI go together like good morals and the devil.

 

[sniper]

good post & summary of options.
Agreed, the conflicts of interest are the reason that none of the (conspiracy) hypotheses can a priori be discarded.

I doubt there's anybody in the peloton who sits on more dirt than Bruyneel.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

good post & summary of options.
Agreed, the conflicts of interest are the reason that none of the (conspiracy) hypotheses can a priori be discarded.

I doubt there's anybody in the peloton who sits on more dirt than Bruyneel.

Yeah, but he's got some competition from Saiz and Riis, and probably some lesser known but equally unsavory characters. Not to mention Verbruggen and Pat.

I hope we can turn this thread towards discussion of corruption in the UCI and the pernicious role it's played in the careers of cyclists. So whatever information you might turn up in this regard, whether it concerns Contador, the death of Pantani, the Landis positive, or whatever it might be, this seems like as good a place to put it as any.

 

[blutto]

....very glad this thread has been reopened because it does address a major problem in cycling that I believe is actually bigger than doping, that is corruption ( of which doping is a subset, closely related, but still a subset of corruption ).....the problem is that this idea got shoved into The Clinic where it was subjected to the now standard Clinic Wood Chipper treatment and got shredded ....and once reduced to the usual Clinic pile of wood chips it was closed down, which was a pity but sorta understandable as in we have down this road way too often....

....so the question is how to reignite this topic and give it a direction....well.....the following from an exchange with a really smart guy may help in that regard....

The problem is exactly as you state it. Doping riders are entirely secondary, and trashing them merely makes the doping cudgel that much more effective for the corrupt administrators controlling the sport. It's also a huge distraction. Sports fans sometimes behave like real sheep.

....nice reframing of the issues eh....neatly separates the targets, all of which are legitimate though requiring special attention and focus....needlessly confusing one with the other just wastes effort and ammo....

....The Clinic has been pretty good at marshalling efforts to expose the dopers....it may now be time to dedicate some effort to figure out how the corruption picture plays out....keeping in mind this is going to be harder than just going after the obvious dopers who as the quote points out just well may be chaff to distract you from the main target....

...very much looking forward to have this move constructively forward....so lets stop being kneejerk driven sheep who are well trained to gobble down each new bit of doped fodder and then wait wait for the next morsel which will be along shortly....its now a standardized routine.....so lets get them serious detective thangs happening and go after the thing that helps birth and nurture the doping, the corrupt business structure...

Cheers

 

[Rob27172]

The main issue with the hypothesis you are putting forward is two fold and I am afraid I have stated this on numerous occasions in numerous threads

1: The major corruption is based in the UCI and ASO structures - too cosy and control all the money in the sport and absolutely no way they will ever be removed. What is cycling without the Tour de france, the olympics or the road world championship
2. the SPORT of cycling is not a sport any longer it is an entertainment business and like the other entertainments businesses, NFL, Soccer, Baseball, WWE, it is driven by money and has no regards for the true fan or the protaganists but only for the beast that is the organisation behind it and feeding the TV viewing figures.

Whilst some on this forum and certain others around the world will look on with dismay as the odd nobody is thrown under the bus by the UCI to keep WADA and Tygart happy. we all know the true story behind the sport. All the talk and discussion on here or anywhere else is not going to change it one drop.

Corruption - yes - since the very first races were held there has been corruption and deals and favoured riders
Cheating - Yes - Since the very first races there have been riders getting their friends to beat up or knock other riders off or riders catching trains across country etc. etc. etc right up to our era and drugs and motor doping.

What amazes me is that we even have these discussions about cleaning up the sport as if it was EVER clean. It has never been truly clean so what utopia are we supposed to be aiming to get back to by cleaning it up.

The only difference is now that we know a lot more about it all due to the internet and knowledge sharing etc. etc.

 

[blutto]

Re:

The main issue with the hypothesis you are putting forward is two fold and I am afraid I have stated this on numerous occasions in numerous threads

1: The major corruption is based in the UCI and ASO structures - too cosy and control all the money in the sport and absolutely no way they will ever be removed. What is cycling without the Tour de france, the olympics or the road world championship
2. the SPORT of cycling is not a sport any longer it is an entertainment business and like the other entertainments businesses, NFL, Soccer, Baseball, WWE, it is driven by money and has no regards for the true fan or the protaganists but only for the beast that is the organisation behind it and feeding the TV viewing figures.

Whilst some on this forum and certain others around the world will look on with dismay as the odd nobody is thrown under the bus by the UCI to keep WADA and Tygart happy. we all know the true story behind the sport. All the talk and discussion on here or anywhere else is not going to change it one drop.

Corruption - yes - since the very first races were held there has been corruption and deals and favoured riders
Cheating - Yes - Since the very first races there have been riders getting their friends to beat up or knock other riders off or riders catching trains across country etc. etc. etc right up to our era and drugs and motor doping.

What amazes me is that we even have these discussions about cleaning up the sport as if it was EVER clean. It has never been truly clean so what utopia are we supposed to be aiming to get back to by cleaning it up.

The only difference is now that we know a lot more about it all due to the internet and knowledge sharing etc. etc.

....agreed....and yeah it is a bit of a pie in the sky thing here....but at the very least it would nice to expand the field of knowledge about the corruption/bureaucracy nexus....and at the very least know the other players in the other half of the world of cycling....

Cheers

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

The main issue with the hypothesis you are putting forward is two fold and I am afraid I have stated this on numerous occasions in numerous threads

1: The major corruption is based in the UCI and ASO structures - too cosy and control all the money in the sport and absolutely no way they will ever be removed. What is cycling without the Tour de france, the olympics or the road world championship

Well, first of all, the UCI and ASO aren't exactly what could be called cozy with each other; in fact they are at odds, and have been for a long time. They have certain interests in common, yes, but also conflicting interests. One of those conflicting interests is control of the Tour and what direction it takes.

After the Landis dabacle ASO put in place people who were actually making inroads against doping. One of the ways they did this was by taking dope testing out of the UCI's hands and placing it in the hands of WADA. When Armstrong was about to make his comeback, he went to France and actually had one-on-one meetings with the president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, who was a huge cycling fan, and with the owners of ASO. Subsequent to these meetings, the anti-doping people ASO had hired were fired and the strict anti-doping policy relaxed.

ASO hired the anti-doping people in the first place because they could see how doping was damaging their product. I imagine Armstrong's contention to them was that it isn't doping that's damaging the sport, it's the positive controls. (And I'm quite sure he made his return contingent on returning the race to the status quo.)

Within France for many years now (until recently, at least) a negative attitude towards doping has prevailed within the pro teams. That's why no French rider has won the race in ages. But this illustrates that it is possible to change the culture if the will is there.

2. the SPORT of cycling is not a sport any longer it is an entertainment business and like the other entertainments businesses, NFL, Soccer, Baseball, WWE, it is driven by money and has no regards for the true fan or the protaganists but only for the beast that is the organisation behind it and feeding the TV viewing figures.

It certainly is driven by money, but the reason people like sport is because it's competitive. (We can set WWE aside because that's seen as a type of theater, not sport.) When oxygen vector doping entered the sport it became less compelling because it lessened the suffering of riders and thereby the drama on the road. The use of motors in the bikes does this even more acutely.

If the race isn't interesting, isn't even seen as being sport any longer, fans will lose interest. No one wants to be taken for a fool. More to the point, sponsors will lose interest. Ultimately it will be in ASO's interest to pick up where they left off when Armstrong reappeared on the scene. This won't mean wiping out doping completely, but it will mean controlling for motors, and keeping doping to the bare minimum.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

I don't remember the chronology and I'm convinced Sarkozy is corrupt in many ways but why on Earth would he favor Armstrong (doped) against french riders who were supposed to be clean(ish) at the time ? Imagine the impact of a french win in the TDF. No french president would disregard that.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

The main issue with the hypothesis you are putting forward is two fold and I am afraid I have stated this on numerous occasions in numerous threads

1: The major corruption is based in the UCI and ASO structures - too cosy and control all the money in the sport and absolutely no way they will ever be removed. What is cycling without the Tour de france, the olympics or the road world championship
2. the SPORT of cycling is not a sport any longer it is an entertainment business and like the other entertainments businesses, NFL, Soccer, Baseball, WWE, it is driven by money and has no regards for the true fan or the protaganists but only for the beast that is the organisation behind it and feeding the TV viewing figures.

Whilst some on this forum and certain others around the world will look on with dismay as the odd nobody is thrown under the bus by the UCI to keep WADA and Tygart happy. we all know the true story behind the sport. All the talk and discussion on here or anywhere else is not going to change it one drop.

Corruption - yes - since the very first races were held there has been corruption and deals and favoured riders
Cheating - Yes - Since the very first races there have been riders getting their friends to beat up or knock other riders off or riders catching trains across country etc. etc. etc right up to our era and drugs and motor doping.

What amazes me is that we even have these discussions about cleaning up the sport as if it was EVER clean. It has never been truly clean so what utopia are we supposed to be aiming to get back to by cleaning it up.

The only difference is now that we know a lot more about it all due to the internet and knowledge sharing etc. etc.

I agree that no sport can be 100% clean. I think a reasonable goal and the business's best interest is to ensure performances remain "plausible" so that the general public can identify to them, that there is a fierce competition so that it remains entertaining and spectacular. By consequence, it means giving the opportunity to a clean rider to win sometimes, especially one day races.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

I don't remember the chronology and I'm convinced Sarkozy is corrupt in many ways but why on Earth would he favor Armstrong (doped) against french riders who were supposed to be clean(ish) at the time ? Imagine the impact of a french win in the TDF. No french president would disregard that.

Armstrong had his meeting with Sarkozy in 2008 or early 2009. The meeting wasn't about favoring Armstrong. Armstrong didn't need Sarkozy's help for that. The meeting was probably to impress upon Sarkozy (a fan of the sport) that ASO's recent anti-doping efforts were misguided, and would end up hurting the sport and the race. Armstrong was getting ready to approach ASO with the same message, and doubtlessly hope to enlist the support of Sarkozy.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I don't remember the chronology and I'm convinced Sarkozy is corrupt in many ways but why on Earth would he favor Armstrong (doped) against french riders who were supposed to be clean(ish) at the time ? Imagine the impact of a french win in the TDF. No french president would disregard that.

Armstrong had his meeting with Sarkozy in 2008 or early 2009. The meeting wasn't about favoring Armstrong. Armstrong didn't need Sarkozy's help for that. The meeting was probably to impress upon Sarkozy (a fan of the sport) that ASO's recent anti-doping efforts were misguided, and would end up hurting the sport and the race. Armstrong was getting ready to approach ASO with the same message, and doubtlessly hope to enlist the support of Sarkozy.

Ok. I don't deny Armstrong tried, but I doubt he succeeded. And it's just one of the many things in his come back that didn't go exactly as planned. Epic fail.

Back to Contador, I have to say that, doped or not, I admire his fighting spirit.Although it is easier to keep a fighting spirit when you know you did the right "protocol".
I would compare Contador's fight against Armstrong in 09 to F1 driver Nico Rosberg fighting Michael Schumacher for his come back. It went relatively under the radar but it was no small feat.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

I don't remember the chronology and I'm convinced Sarkozy is corrupt in many ways but why on Earth would he favor Armstrong (doped) against french riders who were supposed to be clean(ish) at the time ? Imagine the impact of a french win in the TDF. No french president would disregard that.

Armstrong had his meeting with Sarkozy in 2008 or early 2009. The meeting wasn't about favoring Armstrong. Armstrong didn't need Sarkozy's help for that. The meeting was probably to impress upon Sarkozy (a fan of the sport) that ASO's recent anti-doping efforts were misguided, and would end up hurting the sport and the race. Armstrong was getting ready to approach ASO with the same message, and doubtlessly hope to enlist the support of Sarkozy.

I would compare Contador's fight against Armstrong in 09 to F1 driver Nico Rosberg fighting Michael Schumacher for his come back. It went relatively under the radar but it was no small feat.

Or maybe beating people of advanced ages for their sport who have been away for 3 years is slightly easier than fans of the other sportsman think.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

I don't remember the chronology and I'm convinced Sarkozy is corrupt in many ways but why on Earth would he favor Armstrong (doped) against french riders who were supposed to be clean(ish) at the time ? Imagine the impact of a french win in the TDF. No french president would disregard that.

Armstrong had his meeting with Sarkozy in 2008 or early 2009. The meeting wasn't about favoring Armstrong. Armstrong didn't need Sarkozy's help for that. The meeting was probably to impress upon Sarkozy (a fan of the sport) that ASO's recent anti-doping efforts were misguided, and would end up hurting the sport and the race. Armstrong was getting ready to approach ASO with the same message, and doubtlessly hope to enlist the support of Sarkozy.

Ok. I don't deny Armstrong tried, but I doubt he succeeded. And it's just one of the many things in his come back that didn't go exactly as planned. Epic fail.

No, it didn't fail. The whole point of the meetings with Sarkozy and ASO was to put the kibosh on ASO's new, newly genuine anti-doping efforts. In the months after these meetings, ASO fired its new anti-doping people and soon handed drug testing back to UCI.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

I don't remember the chronology and I'm convinced Sarkozy is corrupt in many ways but why on Earth would he favor Armstrong (doped) against french riders who were supposed to be clean(ish) at the time ? Imagine the impact of a french win in the TDF. No french president would disregard that.

Armstrong had his meeting with Sarkozy in 2008 or early 2009. The meeting wasn't about favoring Armstrong. Armstrong didn't need Sarkozy's help for that. The meeting was probably to impress upon Sarkozy (a fan of the sport) that ASO's recent anti-doping efforts were misguided, and would end up hurting the sport and the race. Armstrong was getting ready to approach ASO with the same message, and doubtlessly hope to enlist the support of Sarkozy.

I would compare Contador's fight against Armstrong in 09 to F1 driver Nico Rosberg fighting Michael Schumacher for his come back. It went relatively under the radar but it was no small feat.

Or maybe beating people of advanced ages for their sport who have been away for 3 years is slightly easier than fans of the other sportsman think.

Armstrong came third in 2009. Had Contador done what Bruyneel asked of him, Armstrong could have come first.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I don't remember the chronology and I'm convinced Sarkozy is corrupt in many ways but why on Earth would he favor Armstrong (doped) against french riders who were supposed to be clean(ish) at the time ? Imagine the impact of a french win in the TDF. No french president would disregard that.

Armstrong had his meeting with Sarkozy in 2008 or early 2009. The meeting wasn't about favoring Armstrong. Armstrong didn't need Sarkozy's help for that. The meeting was probably to impress upon Sarkozy (a fan of the sport) that ASO's recent anti-doping efforts were misguided, and would end up hurting the sport and the race. Armstrong was getting ready to approach ASO with the same message, and doubtlessly hope to enlist the support of Sarkozy.

I would compare Contador's fight against Armstrong in 09 to F1 driver Nico Rosberg fighting Michael Schumacher for his come back. It went relatively under the radar but it was no small feat.

Or maybe beating people of advanced ages for their sport who have been away for 3 years is slightly easier than fans of the other sportsman think.

Armstrong came third in 2009. Had Contador done what Bruyneel asked of him, Armstrong could have come first.

Or maybe roundabout's comment applies more to F1 than cycling. Thanks to Hamilton, we now know Rosberg is far from being unbeatable. Maybe Schumacher didn't adapt too well to the news F1 regulations. Point taken.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

I agree that no sport can be 100% clean. I think a reasonable goal and the business's best interest is to ensure performances remain "plausible" so that the general public can identify to them, that there is a fierce competition so that it remains entertaining and spectacular. By consequence, it means giving the opportunity to a clean rider to win sometimes, especially one day races.

Exactly.

 

[MarkvW]

I just want to say that Alpuerto Clenbutador is the true soul of cycling. The rightful and true heir to Lance Armstrong!

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

I just want to say that Alpuerto Clenbutador is the true soul of cycling. The rightful and true heir to Lance Armstrong!

Thanks for that substantive contribution to the thread, Mark.