Will Contador Be Juiced Up Again Upon His Return

[Maxiton]

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...

Exactly. We are talking (absurdly, I'll admit) about biggest fraud here. If we were talking biggest success then we could discuss levels and length of success, but we're not talking about that, we're talking biggest fraud. In order to determine biggest fraud then, we need to discuss degrees or magnitude of fraud.

Throughout his career, Contador's performance has varied between, roughly, 7 and 10 on a scale of ten. Froome, on the other hand, for a long time varied between 0 and 5, say, on the same scale, and then suddenly shot up to 12. And Froome, certainly, isn't the only one. So who does that make the biggest fraud?

 

[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.

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.

Indeed, there is no proof of that, just like there is no proof he isn't better without it. So in the end we can only conclude we don't know if Contador is the biggest fraud in cycling. So, don't be an idiot and stop claiming he is. It makes you look dumb.

 

[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.

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...

Exactly. We are talking (absurdly, I'll admit) about biggest fraud here. If we were talking biggest success then we could discuss levels and length of success, but we're not talking about that, we're talking biggest fraud. In order to determine biggest fraud then, we need to discuss degrees or magnitude of fraud.

Throughout his career, Contador's performance has varied between, roughly, 7 and 10 on a scale of ten. Froome, on the other hand, for a long time varied between 0 and 5, say, on the same scale, and then suddenly shot up to 12. And Froome, certainly, isn't the only one. So who does that make the biggest fraud?

Only in the future can we determine who was the bigger fraud - Froome or Contador. King Boonen is just being silly by claiming Contador is without a doubt the biggest fraud while he has zero evidence that Contador is somehow cheating "more" or "worse" than any other cyclist. The only thing he can point to, is that Contador was more successful throughout his career, but as pointed out several times that isn't evidence as it could be down to other reasons. I suggest that from now on, we just ignore King Boonen on this topic.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: 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!

All the thousands of people who were confronted and intimidated by Armstrong/Bruyneel over the years also did what they thought was best for them - namely, whatever the dynamic duo was telling them to do or not do. Probably, this was because they could see what had become of those very few who defied the command. None of them was sharing a hotel with Armstrong/Bruyneel or working on their team, much less standing directly in the way of one of Armstrong's TdF wins.

Contador knew as well as anyone their power and connections in the sport, and what had become of riders who defied them in the past; so when they made him an offer he couldn't refuse he very likely had an inkling of what was in store - but he defied them anyway. That took cojones of cold steel, not carbon, and the heart of a champion.

 

[Maxiton]

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...

Exactly. We are talking (absurdly, I'll admit) about biggest fraud here. If we were talking biggest success then we could discuss levels and length of success, but we're not talking about that, we're talking biggest fraud. In order to determine biggest fraud then, we need to discuss degrees or magnitude of fraud.

Throughout his career, Contador's performance has varied between, roughly, 7 and 10 on a scale of ten. Froome, on the other hand, for a long time varied between 0 and 5, say, on the same scale, and then suddenly shot up to 12. And Froome, certainly, isn't the only one. So who does that make the biggest fraud?

Only in the future can we determine who was the bigger fraud - Froome or Contador. King Boonen is just being silly by claiming Contador is without a doubt the biggest fraud while he has zero evidence that Contador is somehow cheating "more" or "worse" than any other cyclist. The only thing he can point to, is that Contador was more successful throughout his career, but as pointed out several times that isn't evidence as it could be down to other reasons. I suggest that from now on, we just ignore King Boonen on this topic.

The point I was making, Flo, is that if you start near the top and stay near the top, like Contador, you can hardly be called "biggest fraud" - especially when others start near the bottom and stay near the bottom, until finally zooming over the top.

King Boonen is okay. He just doesn't like Contador, obviously, and is thus making a point that is not sustainable.

 

[dacooley]

the biggest fraud is an obvious absurdity. on the other hand why doper contador deserves to stay on top way more than doper froome and why many folks buy this myth so proactively is an amazing enigma.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

the biggest fraud is an obvious absurdity. on the other hand why doper contador deserves to stay on top way more than doper froome and why many folks buy this myth so proactively is an amazing enigma.

He deserves to stay on top because despite the doping he is a champion, as I pointed out above. Froome is a clown, whose presence at the head of the race disgraces what is already a disgraced sport.

 

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

the biggest fraud is an obvious absurdity. on the other hand why doper contador deserves to stay on top way more than doper froome and why many folks buy this myth so proactively is an amazing enigma.

He deserves to stay on top because despite the doping he is a champion, as I pointed out above. Froome is a clown, whose presence at the head of the race disgraces what is already a disgraced sport.

that's called a huge bias, level of fan preferences. i doubt you can justify it on rational grounds.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

the biggest fraud is an obvious absurdity. on the other hand why doper contador deserves to stay on top way more than doper froome and why many folks buy this myth so proactively is an amazing enigma.

He deserves to stay on top because despite the doping he is a champion, as I pointed out above. Froome is a clown, whose presence at the head of the race disgraces what is already a disgraced sport.

that's called a huge bias, level of fan preferences. i doubt you can justify it on rational grounds.

I already have. You just need to read what I wrote above.

 

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

the biggest fraud is an obvious absurdity. on the other hand why doper contador deserves to stay on top way more than doper froome and why many folks buy this myth so proactively is an amazing enigma.

He deserves to stay on top because despite the doping he is a champion, as I pointed out above. Froome is a clown, whose presence at the head of the race disgraces what is already a disgraced sport.

that's called a huge bias, level of fan preferences. i doubt you can justify it on rational grounds.

I already have. You just need to read what I wrote above.

so you call froome a disgrace of cycling because of doping, however you are willing to encourage any kind of doping for contador just to see him at the top spot of the podium?

 

[Netserk]

Re:

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

So Hinault and Fignon were both way bigger frauds than Riis?

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

the biggest fraud is an obvious absurdity. on the other hand why doper contador deserves to stay on top way more than doper froome and why many folks buy this myth so proactively is an amazing enigma.

He deserves to stay on top because despite the doping he is a champion, as I pointed out above. Froome is a clown, whose presence at the head of the race disgraces what is already a disgraced sport.

that's called a huge bias, level of fan preferences. i doubt you can justify it on rational grounds.

I already have. You just need to read what I wrote above.

so you call froome a disgrace of cycling because of doping, however you are willing to encourage any kind of doping for contador just to see him at the top spot of the podium?

No, not encourage, obviously, but tolerate; tolerate long enough to see his redeeming qualities.

 

[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.

Indeed, there is no proof of that, just like there is no proof he isn't better without it. So in the end we can only conclude we don't know if Contador is the biggest fraud in cycling. So, don't be an idiot and stop claiming he is. It makes you look dumb.

Actually, the only proof there is is a positive test and a ban for...Contador. There is a huge amount of evidence against them all. But the only proof of cheating is the positive doping test.

If we assume that every victory in a big race is achieved through doping then the only thing we can do is look at a persons record and see how many races they have cheated to win. Contadors record is miles better than anyone elses' listed which makes him the biggest fraud in cycling based on the only criteria we can truly know after the assumption that everyone is cheating. If Froome surpasses Contador, he takes over the mantle from him, but only if. Currently, based on things we can know, Contador is the biggest fraud in cycling.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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

So Hinault and Fignon were both way bigger frauds than Riis?

Yes, if you make the assumption that every challenger at the time was cheating. There are obvious difficulties comparing across different generations of racer and what was available to them at different stages in their careers. Restricting it to modern champions means you can be more confident about their access to particular methods of cheating. I don't know enough about their era to make that assessment.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

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

So Hinault and Fignon were both way bigger frauds than Riis?

Yes, if you make the assumption that every challenger at the time was cheating. There are obvious difficulties comparing across different generations of racer and what was available to them at different stages in their careers. Restricting it to modern champions means you can be more confident about their access to particular methods of cheating. I don't know enough about their era to make that assessment.

Why would you have to assume that? Wouldn't it be enough to assume that the three mentioned riders were frauds?

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

The point I was making, Flo, is that if you start near the top and stay near the top, like Contador, you can hardly be called "biggest fraud" - especially when others start near the bottom and stay near the bottom, until finally zooming over the top.

King Boonen is okay. He just doesn't like Contador, obviously, and is thus making a point that is not sustainable.

I have no real bias against any rider, I'm pretty jaded on pro cycling and I'm moving more and more towards the view of "they're all guilty" and while I like the riding styles of certain riders over others (in that respect I much prefer Contador!) I try not to let it influence my opinions on things like doping.

The scrutiny applied to Froome/Wiggins/Sky etc. in the clinic is much more than any other rider. I'm fine with that, it's a function of who is riding well, who is reported about and crucially, who people are willing to defend. I think it's also highly likely that on an English speaking website you're going to get a higher concentration of fans and critics of English riders, so the focus is logical.

This leads to some riders almost getting a free ride, not because people think they are clean, but because there is less scrutiny and most people probably think they are cheating. What's the point in discussing if someone is cheating if a) they have already been caught cheating and b) most of you think they are cheating anyway?

But if we are being honest about it and assume riders like Valverde and Contador have been cheating their whole careers, then their whole palmares is fraudulent, that's a lot more fraudulent wins than the current flavours of the month.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

The point I was making, Flo, is that if you start near the top and stay near the top, like Contador, you can hardly be called "biggest fraud" - especially when others start near the bottom and stay near the bottom, until finally zooming over the top.

King Boonen is okay. He just doesn't like Contador, obviously, and is thus making a point that is not sustainable.

I have no real bias against any rider, I'm pretty jaded on pro cycling and I'm moving more and more towards the view of "they're all guilty" and while I like the riding styles of certain riders over others (in that respect I much prefer Contador!) I try not to let it influence my opinions on things like doping.

The scrutiny applied to Froome/Wiggins/Sky etc. in the clinic is much more than any other rider. I'm fine with that, it's a function of who is riding well, who is reported about and crucially, who people are willing to defend. I think it's also highly likely that on an English speaking website you're going to get a higher concentration of fans and critics of English riders, so the focus is logical.

This leads to some riders almost getting a free ride, not because people think they are clean, but because there is less scrutiny and most people probably think they are cheating. What's the point in discussing if someone is cheating if a) they have already been caught cheating and b) most of you think they are cheating anyway?

But if we are being honest about it and assume riders like Valverde and Contador have been cheating their whole careers, then their whole palmares is fraudulent, that's a lot more fraudulent wins than the current flavours of the month.

So you're not buying my whole "balls of steel, heart of a champion" argument?

 

[LaFlorecita]

More fraudulent wins =/= more fraudulent.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

So you're not buying my whole "balls of steel, heart of a champion" argument?

The best argument in this thread

 

[Maxiton]

Seriously, King Boonen, I have to agree with LaFlorecita and Netserk, because by your logic we'd have to conclude that Hinault is indeed a bigger fraud than Riis, and I just don't think that contention is sustainable.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

So you're not buying my whole "balls of steel, heart of a champion" argument?

The best argument in this thread

Ta. I'm rather fond of it.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

Seriously, King Boonen, I have to agree with LaFlorecita and Netserk, because by your logic we'd have to conclude that Hinault is indeed a bigger fraud than Riis, and I just don't think that contention is sustainable.

Never mind. It's my own logic that's off with the post above. Oxygen-vector doping is the game changer, and something Hinault, like riders before him, obviously (or most likely) didn't have access to.

So we have to draw a line, as you point out, King Boonen, between eras: pre-EPO, when champions were champions no matter what dope they were on; and EPO, when donkeys such as Riis could become racehorses.

So you're saying oxygen-vector doping changes everything, makes it impossible to know who is talented/gifted and worthwhile, and that consequently the only reliable measure of fraudulence is the number of wins and length of time winning. Correct?

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Seriously, King Boonen, I have to agree with LaFlorecita and Netserk, because by your logic we'd have to conclude that Hinault is indeed a bigger fraud than Riis, and I just don't think that contention is sustainable.

Never mind. It's my own logic that's off with the post above. Oxygen-vector doping is the game changer, and something Hinault, like riders before him, obviously (or most likely) didn't have access to.

So we have to draw a line, as you point out, King Boonen, between eras: pre-EPO, when champions were champions no matter what dope they were on; and EPO, when donkeys such as Riis could become racehorses.

So you're saying oxygen-vector doping changes everything, makes it impossible to know who is talented/gifted and worthwhile, and that consequently the only reliable measure of fraudulence is the number of wins and length of time winning. Correct?

Well, in any event I'm arguing for a qualitative evaluation of riders, especially as regards degrees of fraudulence and legitimacy. Obviously this is subjective, but no more so than for any other sport. Accordingly, Contador is relatively low on the fraud scale for reasons already stated, but which I can sum up as follows.

1) Consistency. Contador has been a talented cyclist since his mid-adolescence. Much like Merckx before him, he dropped out of school to pursue cycling. His whole life is dedicated to cycling and it's all he knows. He has always ridden at or near the head of the race.

2) Character. His lifelong dedication, mentioned above, is indicative of his character, but there is also his quiet confidence, as well as his courage and sense of honor (both of which were proved when he defied Armstrong and Bruyneel and won the 2009 Tour). These are old-school characteristics of a true cycling champion.

This is what I see in Contador that, to me, lends to him real legitimacy. This constellation of characteristics is lacking in most riders - almost all, really - sometimes sorely lacking. Some of them are superstars, but can't compare.

 

[Metabolol]

Re: Re:

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

So Hinault and Fignon were both way bigger frauds than Riis?

Yes, if you make the assumption that every challenger at the time was cheating. There are obvious difficulties comparing across different generations of racer and what was available to them at different stages in their careers. Restricting it to modern champions means you can be more confident about their access to particular methods of cheating. I don't know enough about their era to make that assessment.

Biggest frauds are guys like Riis, Froome, Chiappucci. Guys who go from nothing special to star riders.Hinault and Fignon doped yes but were also huge natural talents, and they didn't rely on blood doping to transform themselves (you can never rule out occasional blood bag use because it wasn't unknown back then but probably not widely used).

But certainly, after the introduction of EPO, it's become much harder to judge natural talent levels. Many of the guys whos started in the 80s and then started using EPO in the early 90s are easier to analyse in terms of natural talent.

 

[gooner]

All doping is fraud but I judge the differing level of fraud with riders more in the way how they push the lie and perpetuate it. Contador falls into the higher echelons of that category.

Nothing to do with natural talent.