Will Contador Be Juiced Up Again Upon His Return

[JRanton]

Whatever Sky were doing the other teams have certainly caught up. I think it's unlikely all of those teams would start doping again so as crazy as it sounds there may well be an innocent explanation around the Sky miracle of late 2011 to mid-2013.

 

[The Hitch]

Whatever Sky were doing the other teams have certainly caught up. I think it's unlikely all of those teams would start doping again so as crazy as it sounds there may well be an innocent explanation around the Sky miracle of late 2011 to mid-2013.

This is sarcasm yes?

 

[JRanton]

This is sarcasm yes?

It honestly isn't, no.

For example, Dan Martin is a clean rider and he was the strongest rider at L-B-L and won Lombardia last year. We all know the history of those races and if most of the teams had started doping again there's no way Martin would have been the strongest.

 

[Rollthedice]

lol wut?

Gregor Brown
‏@gregorbrown
Valls and van Garderen topped Froome's 18-33 record time up 5.7km Green Mountain, going 18-28 and 18-33, respectively. #TourofOman

 

[sir fly]

Gregor Brown
‏@gregorbrown
Valls and van Garderen topped Froome's 18-33 record time up 5.7km Green Mountain, going 18-28 and 18-33, respectively. #TourofOman

Tailwind, crosswind, headwind... Wind of change blowing wherever you look.

 

[Rollthedice]

Tailwind, crosswind, headwind... Wind of change blowing wherever you look.

And it was hot. Very hot.

 

[sniper]

jranton, great bit of sarcasm, you almost had me fooled!

 

[The Hitch]

It honestly isn't, no.

For example, Dan Martin is a clean rider and he was the strongest rider at L-B-L and won Lombardia last year. We all know the history of those races and if most of the teams had started doping again there's no way Martin would have been the strongest.

You will always be able to find holes in any theory. For instance if cycling was so doped in the mid 2000's how come Moncoutie managed to be a top 10 climber a number of years.

But the holes that one can poke in a - "cycling is clean now", theory are a million times greater than the ones you can poke in a - "cycling is still dirty".

There are so many incidents that cannot be explained from recent cycling and doping history if one chooses to believe cycling has now cleaned up, I'm sure if you look through them again you'll regain your scepticism.

Even ignoring sky, Astana working with Ferrari last year and winning the Tour for example, how would you explain that? Contador being better than he was with Brunyeel, Valverde being just as good, Horner winning at 41. **** Pound saying that from what he has seen cycling is still heavily doped at the top. Ashenden explaining how easy it is to beat the blood passport.

And its actually possible to construct a relatively specific timeline on how doping has continued in cycling for the last 10 years, with drugs like EPO still being used and passing tests in 2013 and 2014, AICAR quite clearly being used in the peloton in recent years etc.

A cycling cleaned up now timeline would look something like this

2006------------------cleaned up at some point---------------2015

Really just Deus Ex Machina.


Anyway your Daniel Martin argument can actually quite easily be explained with what Ashenden said about doping now being limited to small pockets within teams.

These pockets, focus their doping on gts - highest money and highest exposure.
Most of the teams with the resources to dope, devote it to their gc guys for the Tour or Giro or maybe Vuelta.

The Monuments see way less of it.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I rather suspect another ban is coming AC's way from the ADD/USADA investigation, courtesy of Levi, Johan, et al.

Can he be banned, for things that happened before 2010? I doubt it.

 

[JRanton]

You will always be able to find holes in any theory. For instance if cycling was so doped in the mid 2000's how come Moncoutie managed to be a top 10 climber a number of years.

But the holes that one can poke in a - "cycling is clean now", theory are a million times greater than the ones you can poke in a - "cycling is still dirty".

There are so many incidents that cannot be explained from recent cycling and doping history if one chooses to believe cycling has now cleaned up, I'm sure if you look through them again you'll regain your scepticism.

Even ignoring sky, Astana working with Ferrari last year and winning the Tour for example, how would you explain that? Contador being better than he was with Brunyeel, Valverde being just as good, Horner winning at 41. **** Pound saying that from what he has seen cycling is still heavily doped at the top. Ashenden explaining how easy it is to beat the blood passport.

And its actually possible to construct a relatively specific timeline on how doping has continued in cycling for the last 10 years, with drugs like EPO still being used and passing tests in 2013 and 2014, AICAR quite clearly being used in the peloton in recent years etc.

A cycling cleaned up now timeline would look something like this

2006------------------cleaned up at some point---------------2015

Really just Deus Ex Machina.


Anyway your Daniel Martin argument can actually quite easily be explained with what Ashenden said about doping now being limited to small pockets within teams.

These pockets, focus their doping on gts - highest money and highest exposure.
Most of the teams with the resources to dope, devote it to their gc guys for the Tour or Giro or maybe Vuelta.

The Monuments see way less of it.

I just don't buy that argument. Yes, the Monuments are less important than the Grand Tours, but they're still very important. If you could dope to win a grand tour and get away with it why not do it for a hilly monument too?

Not to mention the fact that some of the Grand Tour riders are also hilly classics riders (Valverde/Purito).

 

[sniper]

You will always be able to find holes in any theory. For instance if cycling was so doped in the mid 2000's how come Moncoutie managed to be a top 10 climber a number of years.

But the holes that one can poke in a - "cycling is clean now", theory are a million times greater than the ones you can poke in a - "cycling is still dirty".

There are so many incidents that cannot be explained from recent cycling and doping history if one chooses to believe cycling has now cleaned up, I'm sure if you look through them again you'll regain your scepticism.

Even ignoring sky, Astana working with Ferrari last year and winning the Tour for example, how would you explain that? Contador being better than he was with Brunyeel, Valverde being just as good, Horner winning at 41. **** Pound saying that from what he has seen cycling is still heavily doped at the top. Ashenden explaining how easy it is to beat the blood passport.

And its actually possible to construct a relatively specific timeline on how doping has continued in cycling for the last 10 years, with drugs like EPO still being used and passing tests in 2013 and 2014, AICAR quite clearly being used in the peloton in recent years etc.

A cycling cleaned up now timeline would look something like this

2006------------------cleaned up at some point---------------2015

Really just Deus Ex Machina.


Anyway your Daniel Martin argument can actually quite easily be explained with what Ashenden said about doping now being limited to small pockets within teams.

These pockets, focus their doping on gts - highest money and highest exposure.
Most of the teams with the resources to dope, devote it to their gc guys for the Tour or Giro or maybe Vuelta.

The Monuments see way less of it.

good post

but where are you guys going with that Dan Martin argument?
he strikes me as a doper.
haven't seen a single plausible argument as to why he would be clean.

 

[red_flanders]

I just don't buy that argument. Yes, the Monuments are less important than the Grand Tours, but they're still very important. If you could dope to win a grand tour and get away with it why not do it for a hilly monument too?

Not to mention the fact that some of the Grand Tour riders are also hilly classics riders (Valverde/Purito).

I agree with you. I would only say that doping tends to matter a good bit more in GTs as most of the forms of doping with which we're familiar strongly enhance recovery as well as adding power.

The weight loss drugs fall outside that a bit, helping with power/weight ratios, which would help in either hilly classics or GT's.

 

[Lanark]

Dan Martin being clean isn't incompatible with the peloton still being dirty (at the top). Guys like Hamilton have told in the past that the biggest advantage of doping was recovery during a GT. Add to that that other drugs that are likely popular now (AICAR) mostly have to do with limiting weight while not losing power. Neither of those things are of huge importance in a big classic. And although Martin was strong, or even the strongest in those races, he was hardly dominating them like a 2011 Gilbert.

I'm not saying Martin is clean, I have no evidence one way or another, and I frankly don't care that much. But a clean guy winning 2 classics is hardly a sign of better times, or a sign that you can win a GT while being clean.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Can he be banned, for things that happened before 2010? I doubt it.

Yes, I believe so.

 

[peloton]

Old team Sky gang now working with Tinkoff team, what else did people expect but great results in stage races?!

Bravo Alberto!

 

[red_flanders]

Dan Martin being clean isn't incompatible with the peloton still being dirty (at the top). Guys like Hamilton have told in the past that the biggest advantage of doping was recovery during a GT. Add to that that other drugs that are likely popular now (AICAR) mostly have to do with limiting weight while not losing power. Neither of those things are of huge importance in a big classic. And although Martin was strong, or even the strongest in those races, he was hardly dominating them like a 2011 Gilbert.

I'm not saying Martin is clean, I have no evidence one way or another, and I frankly don't care that much. But a clean guy winning 2 classics is hardly a sign of better times, or a sign that you can win a GT while being clean.

They matter a lot in LBL and Amstel. And if we're talking about Dan Martin, we're talking about LBL.

 

[red_flanders]

Old team Sky gang now working with Tinkoff team, what else did people expect but great results in stage races?!

Bravo Alberto!

But of course the gang was 100% cleans when working at Sky! Bravo Sky!

 

[LaFlorecita]

Yes, I believe so.

I highly doubt it, as he could argue he stopped when he got banned. Essentially he would get banned twice for his mistakes during that time.

Anyway, I don't think it will happen, it's all just a lot of hot air. I guess something could come out after he retires though.

 

[peloton]

But of course the gang was 100% cleans when working at Sky! Bravo Sky!

haha, touche

 

[SeriousSam]

Froomster and AC distancing a weak field (ie, a field) by a 1 minute or more on a climb is to be expected, nothing to see here, please move a long. Only a confident Nibali and a naturally talented Quintana can possibly climb that well.

 

[The Hitch]

. If you could dope to win a grand tour and get away with it why not do it for a hilly monument too?
.

Well it works the same way if they are clean. If Froome and Contador and Quintana and even Nibali for that matter are so good clean why don't they try to go clean for the monuments? It should be even easier.

We are half way into the decade and not a single gt winner has won a monument or vice versa.

In either case, its clear that these guys DON'T try to win monuments, and don't even participate with the exception of the occasional post or pre gt appearance.

So that brings us to peloton is clean vs peloton is dirty.

If the peloton is dirty but all the doping happens at the top like Ashenden says, then its very easy to see why in races the top guys don't target (Liege, Lombardia) clean riders can win, facing very little doping opposition.

On the other hand if the peloton is clean, then I don't see why big budget teams like Sky, Saxo, Astana wouldn't use all their clean perfectly legal cycling preperation techniques that help Contador and Froome crack 6.5 VAM, on their monument riders?

What explanation is there? All Sky's marginal gains can make Froome ride Ventoux as fast as Armstrong but they can't help 7 of Sky's 8 riders even finish the race in Liege?

Not to mention the fact that some of the Grand Tour riders are also hilly classics riders (Valverde/Purito

Yeah and as a whole both have been clearly superior to him on a classic to classic basis over the last 3-4 years. He's gotten the better of them on occasions, when Rodriguez was injured but they were both up there everytime Martin has been good. On the other hand there are dozens of occasions where Valverde and Murito are up there in races that Martin isn't anywhere near the front.

BTW if the peloton is clean then Daniel Martin is actually a very weak rider. He barely scrapes together 1000 cq points and that's when everything goes right for him. Valverde and Purito score 2000 on an average year (Valverde hasn't failed to score 2000 since 2007) and on a good year make 3000.

I'd say its a hell of a lot more difficult to explain how Rodriguez and Valverde can score 3000 cq points clean than it is to explain how Daniel Martin can beat an injured Joaquim Rodriguez by a combined total of 4 seconds in 2 isolated monuments

 

[peloton]

I rather suspect another ban is coming AC's way from the ADD/USADA investigation, courtesy of Levi, Johan, et al.

That's your wishful thinking, Levi never named Contador in the USADA file, and Johan is about to try his case at CAS.

ADD is Anti Doping Denmark, how on earth could they investigate a Spanish rider who was not even on the team at the time?

Sometimes the stupidity here beggars belief, but do carry on.

 

[thehog]

That's your wishful thinking, Levi never named Contador in the USADA file, and Johan is about to try his case at CAS.

ADD is Anti Doping Denmark, how on earth could they investigate a Spanish rider who was not even on the team at the time?

Sometimes the stupidity here beggars belief, but do carry on.

Agree 100%.

 

[ralphbert]

I would just like to say burtie is a pleasure to watch. If getting geared up results in that type of riding then I am all for it.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

I would just like to say burtie is a pleasure to watch. If getting geared up results in that type of riding then I am all for it.

I agree yet ...
it would be nice to see more cat and mouse rather than just cat.

Aussi:
Poor French renaissance