Will Contador Be Juiced Up Again Upon His Return

[airstream]

For sure, but I think Contador has the edge on Froome in the gifted department. Whether that is down to more years training and racing on a program or not.

Froome grew up at altitude and undoubtedly has a good VO2 Max, although we'll probably never know what it is (correct me if the numbers are out there).

He was fairly dominant in SA - The Jock is our hilliest, probably toughest stage race, won the Tour of Mauritius, 2nd at Giro del Capo - but didn't do much in Europe at Barloworld - almost had a Giro stage win in 2009 - but then he was always a domestique on the pro tour until he got to Sky. At Barloworld he probably wasn't on the orange juice like a few of his teammates were.

Froome has obviously been a top notch responder to the Sky invincible stick-man program - probably GW and AICAR if I had to bet on it. But it looks very much to me like this program has come to the end of the road, just like the rampant use of CERA did a few years back.

My feeling is Sky are in for a bit of a thumping at the tour. Contador for the win, no doubt, barring a crash or positive.

I don't deny he uses doping. I refuse to consider he violates the rules harsher than others in terms of doping. Very likely, Froome was relatively clean in Barloworld in comparison to the best GC's of that time. The logic 'one is super talented, other one is joke and super responder' seems to me too biased.

 

[SeriousSam]

Airstream, could you explain why you think that

Froome is simply better physically. Doping has nothing or minimum to do with that.

?

Or are you here

What arguments can have the sphere in which we know nothing or almost nothing?

saying that there's actually no reason to believe this at all, you just happen to believe it anyway (probably based on who you like and dislike)?

People who regard Contador (or A. Schleck for that matter) as a more talented GC rider than Froome can offer at least some evidence, even if there's no certainty to be had.

 

[airstream]

Airstream, could you explain why you think that

?

Or are you here saying that there's actually no reason to believe this at all, you just happen to believe it anyway (probably based on who you like and dislike)?

People who regard Contador (or A. Schleck for that matter) as a more talented GC rider than Froome can offer at least some evidence, even if there's no certainty to be had.

i don't find cues about talent an argument. Talent is irrational and immeasureable. One embodies his potentinal at 24, other - at 28 and so on. It's not about talent, it's about life with lots of circumstances. What is talent in case of Contador and Schleck? The fact that they used doping since early early stages of career and showed results in young age, while Froome probably was riding on some basis anabolic stuff that 100% of peloton used? What do you support guys who thinks Contador and Schleck hierarchically higher in the rights to win than Froome? You support early doping right?


One thing is obvious, Froome wasn't so lucky to get access to advanced doping programmes like Contador and Schleck did, but it doesn't mean he's less legitimate champion. As to sympathies/antipathies I don't see how my posts denigrate some of 3 riders.

I'm saying what I observe. Why should I think the peloton cant have a GC rider who's physically stronger than Contador?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

What arguments can have the sphere in which we know nothing or almost nothing? In the years Contador dominated he apparently had the doping edge, he wasted one of his chances so he should handle the fact that one possibly has doping edge now very patiently so...I don't feel any compassion to him and any censure to his rivals, who probably has an advantage in products. That's how this world works and he knows it.

Only don't boil down this to talent pls. Talent is ...only a bit of a help, a part of success. There are no untalented riders in top-5 of GTs.

I treat Contador and Froome as 2 equal units. They are equally entitle to win and their wins are equally legitimate. Arguing my opinion, you simply go against this equality. It's cycling, not despotism. Any cyclist sooner or later faces a stronger cyclist. The law of life.

Very interesting airstream but I'll give it a pass since you seem not to be able to produce any argument for your first statement.

 

[airstream]

Very interesting airstream but I'll give it a pass since you seem not to be able to produce any argument for your first statement.

In short following your logic if a guy couldn't show say top 10-15 in a gt before 25 years of age, his GT future is already predetermined because he is untalented chump, right?

 

[Miburo]

I am laying bets right now that Contador will be in top form at the Tour. Froome Dawg is going down.

I'm taking your side on the bet. If Contador was doping in 2011 no reason to stop now.

He looks good again. Saxo aswell. Riis's magic

 

[SeriousSam]

i don't find cues about talent an argument. Talent is irrational and immeasureable.

Wrong. Talent can't be directly observed but it's related to performance, which we can observe. And because we have information about the other main determinants of performance, we can make inferences about talent. Sounds abstract, but that's how we know Froome has more talent for endurance sports than, say, you. He also has more talent for endurance sports than the average sportsman. Andy Schleck is more talented at climbing than Frank Schleck. Contador is more talented at GCing than Valverde.

One embodies his potentinal at 24, other - at 28 and so on. It's not about talent, it's about life with lots of circumstances. What is talent in case of Contador and Schleck? The fact that they used doping since early early stages of career and showed results in young age, while Froome probably was riding on some basis anabolic stuff that 100% of peloton used?

More talent implies you perform better if everything else is equal. If Froome is better than some other rider, he must be doing better wrt at least one of the determinants of performance. You believe the reason he's stronger isn't related to doping, so it must be some other factor. I think we agree that the benefits of warming down and washing your hands properly are marginal, which leaves us with...?

What do you support guys who thinks Contador and Schleck hierarchically higher in the rights to win than Froome? You support early doping right?

Not sure what you're saying here, but what I support or don't support is irrelevant.

One thing is obvious, Froome wasn't so lucky to get access to advanced doping programmes like Contador and Schleck did, but it doesn't mean he's less legitimate champion. As to sympathies/antipathies I don't see how my posts denigrate some of 3 riders.

Is that why you believe Froome is stronger than Contador and it doesn't have to do with PEDs? Because you believe Froome wouldn't make a less legitimate champion, it must be the case that he doesn't dope more than his contenders? Finally an answer.

 

[airstream]

If Froome is better than some other rider, he must be doing better wrt at least one of the determinants of performance. You believe the reason he's stronger isn't related to doping, so it must be some other factor.

I find it shameful that Contador or people, who consider him the most talented GC rider, dare complain about more advanced Froome's doping programme, while Сontador first GTs wins were gained by means of more sophisticated doping too. Talent is a coverage. Everyone knows he had better products too. SO, you think more talented riders (as you think) are entitled to dope MORE than guys like Froome and Wiggins. In your view their doping is more legitimate because they are talented... It's a pretty transparent conclusion based on your reasonings.

I consider it ridiculous.

Again, talent is a big conventionality. There's always ocean of factors but talents, however you present talent like something that decides all the things. It is not the case. I wonder how you'd compare Contador and Rodriguez in terms of talent if a 34-year old veteran could be equal to the most talented GC of decade. No racing days? They will be extremely close in the Tour too I think. Let's see.

 

[BroDeal]

I find it shameful that Contador or people, who consider him the most talented GC rider, dare complain about more advanced Froome's doping programme, while Сontador first GTs wins were gained by means of more sophisticated doping too.

I don't see eating tainted steaks as the mark of a sophisticated doping program. It sounds decidely low tech.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I don't deny he uses doping. I refuse to consider he violates the rules harsher than others in terms of doping.

Rules? There are rules followed at the UCI. Sure, there are some. Buuuut, they have suppressed Armstrong and Contador positives to various effect.

Very likely, Froome was relatively clean in Barloworld in comparison to the best GC's of that time.

Do you have any facts to back this up? Honestly just asking.

The logic 'one is super talented, other one is joke and super responder' seems to me too biased.

Agreed! Both being super-responders seems more likely.

 

[Ripper]

What arguments can have the sphere in which we know nothing or almost nothing? In the years Contador dominated he apparently had the doping edge, he wasted one of his chances so he should handle the fact that one possibly has doping edge now very patiently so...I don't feel any compassion to him and any censure to his rivals, who probably has an advantage in products. That's how this world works and he knows it.

Only don't boil down this to talent pls. Talent is ...only a bit of a help, a part of success. There are no untalented riders in top-5 of GTs.

I treat Contador and Froome as 2 equal units. They are equally entitle to win and their wins are equally legitimate. Arguing my opinion, you simply go against this equality. It's cycling, not despotism. Any cyclist sooner or later faces a stronger cyclist. The law of life.

Ok, just a question, why do you think that a better than Contador rider (let's assume they use the same doping) can not hit the scene?

Does that actually answer the question?

I don't think you have answered Fearless ...

 

[airstream]

I don't see eating tainted steaks as the mark of a sophisticated doping program. It sounds decidely low tech.

'Who is more talented' and 'who is a better responder' are improvable and is not defined even scientifically.In my view the second one is ingrained in the first one by default. As to steaks and alleged transfusion, again, we know almost nothing. More precisely, for us, usual fans, it was/is called transfusions whilst I bet this procedure has undergone huge technologic changes since Riis' days by now. Tyler said something like Fuentes had frozen the blood by means of ethylene glycol. God it was almost 10 years ago. We can only guess what the guys use now. So I wouldn't call transfusion a low tech.

Do you have any facts to back this up? Honestly just asking.

Of course not. But it's highly likely. Your version of Froome's ascent just of the interest?

Does that actually answer the question?

Surely, He could answer yes or no. Though, the way FGL reasons says an unequivocal 'yes'. Talented riders are entitled to win more since they use harcdore doping since early age.

 

[Cookster15]

I'm taking your side on the bet. If Contador was doping in 2011 no reason to stop now.

He looks good again. Saxo aswell. Riis's magic

Not according to Robert Millar's sources.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/ro...und-the-honeymoon-is-over-for-sky-and-wiggins

Now to add this scenario we have the return of Alberto Contador, the big danger but according to a team mate he isn't looking to be in the same all-conquering form he once enjoyed

 

[SeriousSam]

I find it shameful that Contador or people, who consider him the most talented GC rider, dare complain about more advanced Froome's doping programme, while Сontador first GTs wins were gained by means of more sophisticated doping too. Talent is a coverage. Everyone knows he had better products too.
SO, you think more talented riders (as you think) are entitled to dope MORE than guys like Froome and Wiggins. In your view their doping is more legitimate because they are talented... It's a pretty transparent conclusion based on your reasonings.


I consider it ridiculous.

None of that has ANYTHING to do with whether there is a reason to believe the initial claim you made, which is what you've been asked to elaborate on.

Disappointing discussion, but at least you've revised your comical position on talent, as this comment of yours in the Froome thread suggests:

Wiggins is just a biological phenomen. Absolutely outstanding athlete.

Not unmeasurable, irrational and scientifically undefined anymore, huh?

 

[Parrulo]

Absolutely nowhere today, he better have a nice stash hidden somewhere otherwise he will be completely humiliated this july.

 

[UlleGigo]

Contador and Rogers horrible in the ITT at the Dauphine today.

So is Riis scared? Has he dialled back the program? Or is just closer to the Schleck style 'suck all year until the Tour then unleash' approach?

Rogers is the key marker for me. He has been nothing like last year. Its very clear that he's off whatever program he was on.

Starting to wonder what we see at the Tour from Saxo. I'm starting to think we won't see much.

 

[Parrulo]

Rogers has just been lazy, Injured and not peaking for races like he was last year

Still Contador has been absolutely crap. Today he was even worse then on the first part of the season.

 

[jilbiker]

Post Doping suspension

Contador's performance this season is consistent with riders in post doping suspension era. They can't seem to find that killer touch any more. His win at the Vuelta 2012 was similar to Ivan Basso's Giro win post his suspension. After the Giro we never heard anything significant from Basso. AC is doing his best this season, I don't buy the sick excuse from Saxo, his best doesn't cut it.

I say this is a bread and water AC and the truth is that it doesn't cut it, the peleton is still on PED. Will he risk it and juice for TDF? I doubt it, its way too late.

 

[Contadoraus Schlecks]

Contador and Rogers horrible in the ITT at the Dauphine today.

So is Riis scared? Has he dialled back the program? Or is just closer to the Schleck style 'suck all year until the Tour then unleash' approach?

Rogers is the key marker for me. He has been nothing like last year. Its very clear that he's off whatever program he was on.

Starting to wonder what we see at the Tour from Saxo. I'm starting to think we won't see much.

Huge decline from Contador. He has been getting progressively worse since January. If he regains form for the Tour it will have to have come from the juice. He is just so far off the mark just now

 

[Lanark]

Huge decline from Contador. He has been getting progressively worse since January. If he regains form for the Tour it will have to have come from the juice. He is just so far off the mark just now

He'll need to beef up his program for the Tour.

To be honest, it sounds unlikely he'll have a chance this Tour. To be competitive this Tour (because Froome will only get better) he'll have get on a 90's style doping regime to bridge the gap. That'll trigger all sorts of alerts.

 

[thehog]

He's probably banking blood now.

The Dauphine was always infamous for poor performances.

 

[heart_attack_man]

Extraction week?

 

[taiwan]

When is the last extraction before the Tour, traditionally, in a transfusion programme? I was looking in the Hamilton thread but couldn't find the info easily.

Edit: worse than his other TT performances this year though: if not extracting blood he could just have stopped riding to falsify the result.

 

[Big Doopie]

Today was a perfect example of how impossible it is to gauge natural talent/progression since the arrival of O2 drugs in cycling.

Contador looked very much like Chiappucci pre-1990.

Remember armstrong's at gila?

Posters in the road racing forums are going nuts, can't believe it. And if/when he suddenly rebounds in the tour they will herald that as the "real" Contador.

Clentadopucci...

 

[the sceptic]

Cant use this as a data point. maybe he was sick or had a toothache.