Why Alberto Contador will never be a champion for the ages

[HyperMartin]

I have dismantled three of your points. You have dismantled none of mine.

I suggest you stop digging.

You've dismantled one of my points.

But when it comes to the other two, you've simply clung to two trivial mistakes which in no way change the big picture.

As it stands, it's Martin 2, Netserk 1.

 

[Red Rick]

PS: Why are Contador fans so defensive? Their default attitude is to call me a liar and/or a troll.

Someone says Contador wasn't that dominant after all? Must be a troll.
Someone says other riders were better? Must be a troll.
Someone says Contador's competition was weak in certain GTs? Must be a troll.

And it is always thus.

To me, this stinks of fanboyist denial.

All I see is a couple of really arbitrary arguments.

 

[HyperMartin]

Problem is you're the only one who disagrees with Contador being a legend.

A quick perusal of this very thread proves otherwise.

Your issue is that you think only EM and BH deserve the title of legend but you're in a minority of one.

No. Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali, to mention but a few, are also true cycling legends. Contador is not.

 

[Netserk]

You've dismantled one of my points.

But when it comes to the other two, you've simply clung to two trivial mistakes which in no way change the big picture.

As it stands, it's Martin 2, Netserk 1.

So you actually gain one point for each time I point out that you have posted blatantly false information?

Can you elaborate on why?

 

[HyperMartin]

So you actually gain one point for each time I point out that you have posted blatantly false information?

Can you elaborate on why?

Because the information, although false (good to see you no longer call it a lie, since it was just genuine mistakes), in no way changes the basic facts against Contador:

1) Even though Contador's win over Evans wasn't based on time bonuses (as you rightly pointed out), the fact remains that Contador wasn't the stronger rider in the 2007 Tour —Rasmussen was.

2) Whether Contador was tied on real time with neutered Leipheimer at the 2008 Vuelta (as I wrongly claimed) or he beat him by a puny 2 seconds (as you rightly pointed out) is an utterly trivial difference. The fact remains that he only beat neutered Leipheimer by the narrowest of margins and that the end result would likely have been different if Levi had been allowed to follow Contador's attacks.

 

[SergeDeM]

A quick perusal of this very thread proves otherwise.

Apart from BigMac who thinks Valverde is more of a legend and a couple of satires nobody else backs you up.

No. Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali, to mention but a few, are also true cycling legends. Contador is not.

Yes, from the time when it was possible to win monuments and GTs. That can't happen now for many reasons. Deal with it. It doesn't mean we don't get to have new legends anymore.

 

[RedheadDane]

5. Losing a GT full blown kamikaze mode? Tour '11

Attacking 80 K from the finish because you just "Want to have some fun on the bike."

PS: Why are Contador fans so defensive? Their default attitude is to call me a liar and/or a troll.

Someone says Contador wasn't that dominant after all? Must be a troll.
Someone says other riders were better? Must be a troll.
Someone says Contador's competition was weak in certain GTs? Must be a troll.

And it is always thus.

To me, this stinks of fanboyist denial.

The problem is you're saying he will never be a legend because he never one a classic! So what? Since when was winning a classic needed to become a legend?

 

[SergeDeM]

1) Even though Contador's win over Evans wasn't based on time bonuses (as you rightly pointed out), the fact remains that Contador wasn't the stronger rider in the 2007 Tour —Rasmussen was.

If that's the case then you have to give Contador his 2010 Tour and 2011 Giro. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Jagartrott]

Apart from BigMac who thinks Valverde is more of a legend and a couple of satires nobody else backs you up.

Yes, from the time when it was possible to win monuments and GTs. That can't happen now for many reasons. Deal with it. It doesn't mean we don't get to have new legends anymore.

I said he was a champion, not a legend.
And of course it's possible to win a monument. Nibali nearly won LBL.

Contador doesn't even try - that's what disappoints me most.

The problem is you're saying he will never be a legend because he never one a classic! So what? Since when was winning a classic needed to become a legend?

Since there is no definition for being a legend, your rebuttal is fairly nonsensical.

 

[Akuryo]

A quick perusal of this very thread proves otherwise.


No. Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali, to mention but a few, are also true cycling legends. Contador is not.

Are you one of those "only climbers can be great riders"? What about guys who dominated the classics/sprints? Boonen, Freire, Cancellara, just to name some of recent years. All "legends" in my book.

By the way, if Contador (from active cyclists) is not a legend, than nobody is.

It is like someone else before me said: A true legend is someone whose achievements will be remembered and watched over and over again. Even in 20, 30 or 40 years from now. And I strongly believe, Contador put up more than enough of those "memorable stages", which lots of people will want to rewatch later. A "legend" is not determined by certain palmares but how we remember their style of riding.

In your book Jens Voigt would not be a legend. His biggest victories are 2 single stages at the Tour and the Deutschland-Rundfahrt. But his attacking style will be remembered even decades from now. His breakaways will be watched over and over again. He IS one of cyclings legends for sure, don't you agree? Even though his palmares are nothing compared to Hinault, Coppi and others.

 

[LittleJo]

The problem is you're saying he will never be a legend because he never one a classic! So what? Since when was winning a classic needed to become a legend?

Indeed - the people who have become legends in cycling haven't always done so on the basis of what they've won. Look at Pantani who - for better or worse - has become a legend. Also, Jens Voigt. Sometimes it's about the riders who make you feel something for the sport, rather than simply those who win everything.

Edit: I see Akuryo got in there before me....

 

[Netserk]

Because the information, although false (good to see you no longer call it a lie, since it was just genuine mistakes), in no way changes the basic facts against Contador:

1) Even though Contador's win over Evans wasn't based on time bonuses (as you rightly pointed out), the fact remains that Contador wasn't the stronger rider in the 2007 Tour —Rasmussen was.

2) Whether Contador was tied on real time with neutered Leipheimer at the 2008 Vuelta (as I wrongly claimed) or he beat him by a puny 2 seconds (as you rightly pointed out) is an utterly trivial difference. The fact remains that he only beat neutered Leipheimer by the narrowest of margins and that the end result would likely have been different if Levi had been allowed to follow Contador's attacks.

1) Have you seen me argue anywhere that Rasmussen wouldn't have won that Tour if he had been allowed to continue? If not, why exactly would that give you a point?

2) You claimed bonus seconds won Contador that race. They did not. Given how that was your second time with a similar 'mistake', at the very least it shows your bias. I still consider it a deliberate lie.

 

[SergeDeM]

I said he was a champion, not a legend.
And of course it's possible to win a monument. Nibali nearly won LBL.

Contador doesn't even try - that's what disappoints me most.


Since there is no definition for being a legend, your rebuttal is fairly nonsensical.

Because Nibali is a legend.
Has any other multiple GT winner even tried to in recent times?

 

[HyperMartin]

If that's the case then you have to give Contador his 2010 Tour and 2011 Giro. You can't have it both ways.

Rasmussen was never disqualified from the 2007 Tour (he was withdrawn voluntarily by his own team), whereas Contador was formally disqualified from those two races.

It's a significant difference in the level of proof against them... Although these matters pertain to the clinic.

 

[Jagartrott]

OK, if people claim Voigt is a legend, there are many, many legends (including Contador).

 

[HyperMartin]

1) Have you seen me argue anywhere that Rasmussen wouldn't have won that Tour if he had been allowed to continue? If not, why exactly would that give you a point?

It gives me a point in my case against Contador being a true cycling legend.

2) You claimed bonus seconds won Contador that race. They did not. Given how that was your second time with a similar 'mistake', at the very least it shows your bias. I still consider it a deliberate lie.

It couldn't be that in both cases I was writing from memory and therefore my recall of time bonuses might have been a couple of seconds off, now could it? No, no, it must have been deliberate lying.

Have you ever heard the mantra "Assume good faith"?

 

[Red Rick]

Rasmussen was never disqualified from the 2007 Tour (he was withdrawn voluntarily by his own team), whereas Contador was formally disqualified from those two races.

It's a significant difference in the level of proof against them... Although these matters pertain to the clinic.

Those are details that are so arbitrary they blow my mind. But arbitrary arguments are the only ones you have, so nobody is gonna agree with you, except other trolls. But you've been around this forum for a couple of months, you knew not a lot of people would agree and still you start this thread with arbitrary bull**** arguments. You only made this thread cause you wanted an audience for your trolls

7 times Contador stood atop of the podium after 21 days of racing

 

[SergeDeM]

Rasmussen was never disqualified from the 2007 Tour (he was withdrawn voluntarily by his own team), whereas Contador was formally disqualified from those two races.

It's a significant difference in the level of proof against them... Although these matters pertain to the clinic.

He was about to be disqualified. No team would remove the tour leader if there was a chance of innocence. It's the same thing.

 

[LittleJo]

OK, if people claim Voigt is a legend, there are many, many legends (including Contador).

Well, no one has yet given a definition of "legend". OED says: "An extremely famous or notorious person, especially in a particular field" - which, to be honest, could apply to a number of cyclists!

 

[Netserk]

Rasmussen was never disqualified from the 2007 Tour (he was withdrawn voluntarily by his own team), whereas Contador was formally disqualified from those two races.

It's a significant difference in the level of proof against them... Although these matters pertain to the clinic.

Yes he was. When he admitted in 2013 that he doped, he got banned for two years (edit: to clarify originally he was banned for eight years, but it was reduced to two years because of his cooperation) and stripped of all results since January 2005.

So just like Contador he was stripped of his results after the race.

Edit2: Further clarification: He got to keep his results while with CWO, but they are hardly worth keeping

 

[HyperMartin]

No team would remove the tour leader if there was a chance of innocence.

I couldn't possibly comment without veering into clinic territory.

 

[HyperMartin]

Yes he was. When he admitted in 2013 that he doped, he got banned for two years (edit: to clarify originally he was banned for eight years, but it was reduced to two years because of his cooperation) and stripped of all results since January 2005.

Link, please?

A Google search for michael rasmussen stripped results in several different languages yields no confirmation, while Wikipedia still shows his 2005 and 2006 results as valid.

 

[Netserk]

Link, please?

A Google search for michael rasmussen stripped results in several different languages yields no confirmation, while Wikipedia still shows his 2005 and 2006 results as valid.

http://www.dif.dk/da/nyt/dif-nyheder/2013/september/20130927_rasmussen

I forbindelse med behandlingen af sagen besluttede dopingnævnet, at Michael Rasmussens resultater i perioden januar 2005 til marts 2010 bliver annulleret.

 

[BigMac]

Those are details that are so arbitrary they blow my mind. But arbitrary arguments are the only ones you have, so nobody is gonna agree with you, except other trolls. But you've been around this forum for a couple of months, you knew not a lot of people would agree and still you start this thread with arbitrary bull**** arguments. You only made this thread cause you wanted an audience for your trolls

7 times Contador stood atop of the podium after 21 days of racing

Calling someone with a different opinion than yours and the majority a 'troll'... Bandwagon fallacy much?

 

[RownhamHill]

Perhaps the best way to reach a consensus (if at all possible on an Internet forum) is to tackle the debate piecemeal instead of all in one go.

So let's have a look at the first point of contention: Contador will never be a true cycling legend because of his mediocre classics palmarès.

Out of interest how many monument winners in recent years have won GTs? And does it mean that Boonen, Cancellara, Cavendish or Gilbert have any claim to legendary status until they win a GT?