Will Contador Be Juiced Up Again Upon His Return

[King Boonen]

That's exactly the point, he actually has a palmares. He was an exceptional cyclist in youth and has been at or near the top since turning pro. Have all his teams been dodgy? Yes, it's a dodgy sport. But unlike his competitors he didn't come from nowhere, and actually looks like he belongs on a bike.

You know as well as I do that he would have never been popped for those three atoms of Clen in his blood had he not defied Armstrong - not to say that the Clen got there accidentally.

I too would not be surprised if he has been involved in motor-doping. If he wants to compete at the top he has to match his competitors cheat for cheat. That's just the way it is. All the more reason then to get motors out of cycling.

This makes the assumption that either he wasn't doping as a junior or everyone else was, that doesn't fit the current narrative for Froome or Wiggins (seeing as you mentioned them). It is perfectly possible every single result he has achieved is tainted. It's also irrelevant. He currently has the best palmares in the GT brigade by most peoples standards, which puts him up there as the biggest name in cycling. If he is a fraud he is therefore the biggest fraud in cycling.

Funny you should blame Armstrong for Contadors cheating and then use the exact same excuse Armstrong used to explain Contadors cheating (everyone was doing it, I was levelling the playing field), makes it easy to see where the bias is at least. Atoms =! Molecules and it was more than 3. He doped, he got caught, end of.

As far as I am concerned, Contador is the biggest fraud in cycling and his current position at the top of the tree means no-one wants to catch him.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

That's exactly the point, he actually has a palmares. He was an exceptional cyclist in youth and has been at or near the top since turning pro. Have all his teams been dodgy? Yes, it's a dodgy sport. But unlike his competitors he didn't come from nowhere, and actually looks like he belongs on a bike.

You know as well as I do that he would have never been popped for those three atoms of Clen in his blood had he not defied Armstrong - not to say that the Clen got there accidentally.

I too would not be surprised if he has been involved in motor-doping. If he wants to compete at the top he has to match his competitors cheat for cheat. That's just the way it is. All the more reason then to get motors out of cycling.

This makes the assumption that either he wasn't doping as a junior or everyone else was, that doesn't fit the current narrative for Froome or Wiggins (seeing as you mentioned them). It is perfectly possible every single result he has achieved is tainted. It's also irrelevant. He currently has the best palmares in the GT brigade by most peoples standards, which puts him up there as the biggest name in cycling. If he is a fraud he is therefore the biggest fraud in cycling.

Funny you should blame Armstrong for Contadors cheating and then use the exact same excuse Armstrong used to explain Contadors cheating (everyone was doing it, I was levelling the playing field), makes it easy to see where the bias is at least. Atoms =! Molecules and it was more than 3. He doped, he got caught, end of.

As far as I am concerned, Contador is the biggest fraud in cycling and his current position at the top of the tree means no-one wants to catch him.

I should probably have left defending Contador to LaFlorecita since that's her job and she could probably do it a lot better. It just seems to me that calling him the biggest fraud in cycling is a bit over the top, given that there are so many competitors for the title who are better suited to it.

I believe Manolo Saiz first got involved with Contador when the latter was a junior. We know what that means. Then, he moved over to Johan Bruyneel. Ditto Bruyneel. Then, Alexander Vinokourov. Likewise. Then that grinning idiot Bjarne Riis. And so it seems likely that all his achievements are tainted, as you say, certainly by association if not actual guilt (though guilt seems almost certain).

But the thing is, every rider in the GC during those years - and these - no matter their manager, is equally tainted because the entire sport is tainted. So this alone does not qualify him as biggest fraud, it merely makes him the most successful fraud. You may say that this is a distinction without a difference, but what of someone such as Froome who goes overnight from pack fodder to superstar that not even the purported biggest fraud can catch? What of Cancellara, who suddenly motors away from his biggest rival and your namesake, Boonen, like Boonen is standing still (literally, with leg cramps) - because in all likelihood he was motoring?

There's a lot of competition for biggest fraud in a sport fraught with fraud. I see Contador as a talented cyclist whose role in cycling hasn't been particularly pernicious. He's always kept his head down and followed orders - until, that is, it was time to defend his honor and position and do what no one else had the guts to do: stand up to Armstrong and Bruyneel, at great cost to himself. In keeping his head down and following orders he has met with success - he can hardly be called biggest fraud solely on account of that, especially with so many greater frauds in the running. Contador is a consistent, successful, lifelong GC leader. Nothing less, but also nothing more.

 

[King Boonen]

I'm not saying he's a long way in front of everyone else, but by virtue of being the most winningest GT rider of the generation he earns the title in my opinion. Of course, I've pointed out before that I don't really care about GTs, so I'd really pick Canc or Boonen, but I've taken into account that in terms of worldwide fame the GTs, and specifically the tour, Trump everything in general.

Biggest fraud would be perpetuating it for the longest and gaining the most from it. In that regard someone like Froome still has time to take the title and most likely will when Contador retires (as I kept it to people currently in cycling).

 

[Metabolol]

Biggest fraud? Definitely not, the fact that he is still around says something about his natural talent. He is of course a doper but I would rate someone such as Froome as a much bigger fraud. I'm convinced that Alberto is one of those dopers who would be at the absolute top even without doping (which certainly isn't always the case). Froome on the other hand is a nobody and one of those people who have turned cycling into a complete joke.

The way Alberto's career has developed indicates he has some protection (increased after USADA busted Armstrong) thanks to his success but he has never been the favourite of the UCI.

 

[King Boonen]

So personal bias excuses one but validates the other? Most fraudulent wins in the biggest races = biggest fraud.

 

[Metabolol]

Re:

So personal bias excuses one but validates the other? Most fraudulent wins in the biggest races = biggest fraud.

It's not a personal bias that he has been around at the top for 10 years.

As someone said above, maybe most successful fraud but not the biggest.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Contador joined Saiz's team in 2001 when he was 18 years old. It is just foolish to assume he doped before that (who would pay for it?). He has been very consistent throughout his career and he is also very consistent throughout each season. No massive jumps from one race to another. He has great physiological qualities and has had them since the very start as has been proven by many tests: naturally high HCT, very high lactate threshold and produces very little lactic acid to begin with - remember the guy that works/worked with Vaughters, he tested Contador when he was still very young and this doctor says he is the best talent he ever saw. As Maxiton wrote, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest he is a bigger fraud than any other successful cyclist. Until something comes out about him sending half his monthly salary to the UCI and the other half to doping testers and labs, I will defend him against baseless accusations lik this one. Doper, sure. Most successful doper, obviously, by a mile. Biggest fraud in cycling, don't make me laugh.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

So personal bias excuses one but validates the other? Most fraudulent wins in the biggest races = biggest fraud.

It's not a personal bias that he has been around at the top for 10 years.

As someone said above, maybe most successful fraud but not the biggest.

correct...where you have come from is one of the biggest determinants of the 'biggest' frauds...and we all know who are most culpable on that count...

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

Biggest fraud? Definitely not, the fact that he is still around says something about his natural talent. He is of course a doper but I would rate someone such as Froome as a much bigger fraud. I'm convinced that Alberto is one of those dopers who would be at the absolute top even without doping (which certainly isn't always the case). Froome on the other hand is a nobody and one of those people who have turned cycling into a complete joke.

The way Alberto's career has developed indicates he has some protection (increased after USADA busted Armstrong) thanks to his success but he has never been the favourite of the UCI.

I completely agree. He has to have some sort of protection, but to call him the biggest fraud of cycling is absurd. It's not his fault the UCI can't afford to bust someone so successful.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

So personal bias excuses one but validates the other? Most fraudulent wins in the biggest races = biggest fraud.

It's not a personal bias that he has been around at the top for 10 years.

As someone said above, maybe most successful fraud but not the biggest.

No, it is personal bias that says you are certain he would be one of the best if there was no doping to which there is no proof considering he has likely doped his whole career. He has likely doped to win more of the big races than any other GT contender in the current peloton and he can't even accept it when he is caught, still claiming the titles he was stripped of because he got sloppy.

Everyone loves to have a go at Froome and Wiggins for their massive jumps, that's fine, but their cycling achievements pale in comparison to what Contador has likely cheated to win.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Calling Contador the biggest fraud is not an absurd opinion. His racing record speaks for itself. You can disagree whether that should be the largest criteria for deciding the magnitude of fraud, but the opinion itself has merit.

 

[sniper]

definition of a FRAUD:

a person or thing intended to deceive others

What have Froome, Wiggins, and Contador done to deceive others? Doping and claiming cleanliness goes for all three. So let's look at additional lying and bullying.
Froome: lies about bilharzia, lies about other diseases, trolls competitors by asking for more testing.
Wiggins: lies about gluten, bullies Kimmage, bullies fans who dare criticize.
Contador: lies about beefsteak, faked 50+ htc exemption.

A tie?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

Contador: faked 50+ htc exemption.

Where is your evidence? If you don't have any you are a FRAUD as per your own definition.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

Calling Contador the biggest fraud is not an absurd opinion. His racing record speaks for itself. You can disagree whether that should be the largest criteria for deciding the magnitude of fraud, but the opinion itself has merit.

It means he is the most successful fraud. This could be the case because he is the biggest fraud, or because he is the fraud with the best natural talent. So far I haven't seen any evidence to suggest he is the single biggest fraud in cycling.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Everyone loves to have a go at Froome and Wiggins for their massive jumps, that's fine, but their cycling achievements pale in comparison to what Contador has likely cheated to win.

He cheated just like everyone else. He won not like everyone else. Is that why he is a bigger fraud? If I cheat on half of the questions on an exam and score a 9/10, and someone else also cheats on the same half of the questions on the same exam but scores a 6/10, am I a bigger cheat? No, I am not because we both cheated equally. Now, please admit you were wrong.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re: Re:

So personal bias excuses one but validates the other? Most fraudulent wins in the biggest races = biggest fraud.

It's not a personal bias that he has been around at the top for 10 years.

As someone said above, maybe most successful fraud but not the biggest.

No, it is personal bias that says you are certain he would be one of the best if there was no doping to which there is no proof considering he has likely doped his whole career. He has likely doped to win more of the big races than any other GT contender in the current peloton and he can't even accept it when he is caught, still claiming the titles he was stripped of because he got sloppy.

Everyone loves to have a go at Froome and Wiggins for their massive jumps, that's fine, but their cycling achievements pale in comparison to what Contador has likely cheated to win.

Except that since the jumps, Contador can't seem to really threaten Froome or Sky at any huge race.

But, looking at overall palmares, Contador is up there with biggest dopers. Froome's a far bigger fraud, in my opinion. At least Contador has race tactics. Froome just has his stem.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Contador: faked 50+ htc exemption.

Where is your evidence? If you don't have any you are a FRAUD as per your own definition.

the whole discussion is based on stuff we have no evidence for.
get over it.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

So personal bias excuses one but validates the other? Most fraudulent wins in the biggest races = biggest fraud.

It's not a personal bias that he has been around at the top for 10 years.

As someone said above, maybe most successful fraud but not the biggest.

No, it is personal bias that says you are certain he would be one of the best if there was no doping to which there is no proof considering he has likely doped his whole career. He has likely doped to win more of the big races than any other GT contender in the current peloton and he can't even accept it when he is caught, still claiming the titles he was stripped of because he got sloppy.

Everyone loves to have a go at Froome and Wiggins for their massive jumps, that's fine, but their cycling achievements pale in comparison to what Contador has likely cheated to win.

Except that since the jumps, Contador can't seem to really threaten Froome or Sky at any huge race.

But, looking at overall palmares, Contador is up there with biggest dopers. Froome's a far bigger fraud, in my opinion. At least Contador has race tactics. Froome just has his stem.

Don't be silly, we should only look at the number of wins a rider has to determine their level of fraud.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Contador: faked 50+ htc exemption.

Where is your evidence? If you don't have any you are a FRAUD as per your own definition.

the whole discussion is based on stuff we have no evidence for.
get over it.

Just calling you out on another unfounded claim. Tut tut.

 

[Maxiton]

That's exactly the point, he actually has a palmares. He was an exceptional cyclist in youth and has been at or near the top since turning pro. Have all his teams been dodgy? Yes, it's a dodgy sport. But unlike his competitors he didn't come from nowhere, and actually looks like he belongs on a bike.

You know as well as I do that he would have never been popped for those three atoms of Clen in his blood had he not defied Armstrong - not to say that the Clen got there accidentally.

I too would not be surprised if he has been involved in motor-doping. If he wants to compete at the top he has to match his competitors cheat for cheat. That's just the way it is. All the more reason then to get motors out of cycling.

This makes the assumption that either he wasn't doping as a junior or everyone else was, that doesn't fit the current narrative for Froome or Wiggins (seeing as you mentioned them). It is perfectly possible every single result he has achieved is tainted. It's also irrelevant. He currently has the best palmares in the GT brigade by most peoples standards, which puts him up there as the biggest name in cycling. If he is a fraud he is therefore the biggest fraud in cycling.

Funny you should blame Armstrong for Contadors cheating and then use the exact same excuse Armstrong used to explain Contadors cheating (everyone was doing it, I was levelling the playing field), makes it easy to see where the bias is at least. Atoms =! Molecules and it was more than 3. He doped, he got caught, end of.

As far as I am concerned, Contador is the biggest fraud in cycling and his current position at the top of the tree means no-one wants to catch him.

I should probably have left defending Contador to LaFlorecita since that's her job and she could probably do it a lot better. It just seems to me that calling him the biggest fraud in cycling is a bit over the top, given that there are so many competitors for the title who are better suited to it.

I believe Manolo Saiz first got involved with Contador when the latter was a junior. We know what that means. Then, he moved over to Johan Bruyneel. Ditto Bruyneel. Then, Alexander Vinokourov. Likewise. Then that grinning idiot Bjarne Riis. And so it seems likely that all his achievements are tainted, as you say, certainly by association if not actual guilt (though guilt seems almost certain).

But the thing is, every rider in the GC during those years - and these - no matter their manager, is equally tainted because the entire sport is tainted. So this alone does not qualify him as biggest fraud, it merely makes him the most successful fraud. You may say that this is a distinction without a difference, but what of someone such as Froome who goes overnight from pack fodder to superstar that not even the purported biggest fraud can catch? What of Cancellara, who suddenly motors away from his biggest rival and your namesake, Boonen, like Boonen is standing still (literally, with leg cramps) - because in all likelihood he was motoring?

There's a lot of competition for biggest fraud in a sport fraught with fraud. I see Contador as a talented cyclist whose role in cycling hasn't been particularly pernicious. He's always kept his head down and followed orders - until, that is, it was time to defend his honor and position and do what no one else had the guts to do: stand up to Armstrong and Bruyneel, at great cost to himself. In keeping his head down and following orders he has met with success - he can hardly be called biggest fraud solely on account of that, especially with so many greater frauds in the running. Contador is a consistent, successful, lifelong GC leader. Nothing less, but also nothing more.

I'm not saying he's a long way in front of everyone else, but by virtue of being the most winningest GT rider of the generation he earns the title in my opinion. Of course, I've pointed out before that I don't really care about GTs, so I'd really pick Canc or Boonen, but I've taken into account that in terms of worldwide fame the GTs, and specifically the tour, Trump everything in general.

Biggest fraud would be perpetuating it for the longest and gaining the most from it. In that regard someone like Froome still has time to take the title and most likely will when Contador retires (as I kept it to people currently in cycling).

I came back here after dinner to revise and develop my reply because I felt it was too equivocal toward Contador, and didn't provide sufficient resolution. But I can see that of course you've already answered, so I'll just respond by picking up where I left off.

I said, "Contador is a consistent, successful, lifelong GC leader. Nothing less, but also nothing more." Strike that. It's not quite right.

Standing up to Armstrong and Bruyneel when he did, in the way he did, while inside the lions' den, is no small thing, quite the contrary. It may be the signal event of his career. No one else in cycling, or outside it, had dared do this in all those years. It was in this defiance - in the name of his honor and position - not in his palmares, that Contador showed the mettle of a champion, one the likes of which cycling hasn't seen since I don't know when - Gino Bartali, maybe. There are no PEDs for that.

Are his achievements on the road tainted? Almost without doubt. But he more than redeemed this by the courage and character he showed when it counted most. Proving, if nothing else, that he is a champion deserving the name, no matter what "aids" he might have had - and proving in the bargain that cycling itself is not beyond redemption.

PS. "Trump" is only capitalized if he becomes president.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Contador: faked 50+ htc exemption.

Where is your evidence? If you don't have any you are a FRAUD as per your own definition.

the whole discussion is based on stuff we have no evidence for.
get over it.

Just calling you out on another unfounded claim. Tut tut.

I'm not your enemy laflo, calm down.

anyway, it's neither a claim, nor unfounded.
it's just logical to assume given the history of the sport. but i could be wrong.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I'm not your enemy laflo, calm down.

anyway, it's neither a claim, nor unfounded.
it's just logical to assume given the history of the sport. but i could be wrong.

I'm very calm, I stopped taking this forum seriously a long while ago. And you know I agree with you on many things. But in this case, you claimed something and there is no evidence for it. That's just the truth, you may be right, but there is no evidence. That's it


Edit:
This is what Ashenden said about the exemption, by the way:

Because Contador had previously applied to the UCI for an exemption for high haematocrit, during 2006 he had spent several days at the Lausanne antidoping laboratory who collected some very carefully controlled blood tests. Those data were obviously considered to be reliable – Contador had been granted an exemption based on the validity of those data thus it would be very difficult for him to turn around and suggest those data could not be relied upon. I used those data to establish to my satisfaction what his natural values for haemoglobin and reticulocytes were.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Calling Contador the biggest fraud is not an absurd opinion. His racing record speaks for itself. You can disagree whether that should be the largest criteria for deciding the magnitude of fraud, but the opinion itself has merit.

It means he is the most successful fraud. This could be the case because he is the biggest fraud, or because he is the fraud with the best natural talent. So far I haven't seen any evidence to suggest he is the single biggest fraud in cycling.

Depends on your definition of succesful, surely the most successful fraud(ster) is the one who cheats, gets away with it and there is little / no suspicion? Of which I'm sure there have been very few - certainly recently.

Bertie is certainly the most prolific race winner (except perhaps wonderboy) when it comes to dopers (certainly sanctioned ones).

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Everyone loves to have a go at Froome and Wiggins for their massive jumps, that's fine, but their cycling achievements pale in comparison to what Contador has likely cheated to win.

He cheated just like everyone else. He won not like everyone else. Is that why he is a bigger fraud? If I cheat on half of the questions on an exam and score a 9/10, and someone else also cheats on the same half of the questions on the same exam but scores a 6/10, am I a bigger cheat? No, I am not because we both cheated equally. Now, please admit you were wrong.

Irrelevant comparison, you're attempting to say their cheating is the same but Contador is better without it. There's no proof of that, the only thing we can look at is their record. Contador is the biggest fraud in cycling.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

I said, "Contador is a consistent, successful, lifelong GC leader. Nothing less, but also nothing more." Strike that. It's not quite right.

Standing up to Armstrong and Bruyneel when he did, in the way he did, while inside the lions' den, is no small thing, quite the contrary. It may be the signal event of his career. No one else in cycling, or outside it, had dared do this in all those years. It was in this defiance - in the name of his honor and position - not in his palmares, that Contador showed the mettle of a champion, one the likes of which cycling hasn't seen since I don't know when - Gino Bartali, maybe. There are no PEDs for that.

Are his achievements on the road tainted? Almost without doubt. But he more than redeemed this by the courage and character he showed when it counted most. Proving, if nothing else, that he is a champion deserving the name, no matter what "aids" he might have had - and proving in the bargain that cycling itself is not beyond redemption.

PS. "Trump" is only capitalized if he becomes president.

Contador won a race because he could and the writing was on the wall for Armstrong/Bruyneel et. al. He did what was best for him.

I'll blame the capitalisation on using a French keyboard at the time of posting!