Will Contador Be Juiced Up Again Upon His Return

[Taxus4a]

Big doopie youre so funny. Contador is the biggest villain, impossible to know his true talent level since he has been doping since he was 14. blah blah.

But when a garmin riders wins one of the most heavily doped races of the year then we can be sure he is extremely talented so there can be no doubt that it was a clean win

To increase result from 2008 to 2011 has to be consider as more proof of cleanliness than other thing. Anyway it is not proof of anything.
For me Hesjedal is the proof that a clean rider if is really good and have the enough mental and phisical strengh can now win a big race.
He has a big engine for three weeks and long and hard classics, and he is one of the favourites for the Tour this year, IMO

 

[martinvickers]

Will he juice up?

Before today, I would have said no. The benefits would be outweighed by the real risk of a career ending ban. Even if he didn't win the Tour, a decent, relatively paniagua showing would pose no danger to him, and suffice for the team. He won the Vuelta, there's less risk there.

After today, really not so sure. His showing was SO abysmal by his standards that the mutterings of some that he must have given blood did not seem beyond possiblity. Or even if he was clean, the performace today was SO poor that one could see Riis almost demanding it.

I expect an improvement for the tour; I would even if he is paniaqua. But this was a seriously bad showing, and its hard to see a convincing legit route back to tour contending form in the time available.

 

[Taxus4a]

You accept that spectacular results are indicative of doping but maintain that Sir Brad and Chris are clean? The cognitive dissonance must be unbearable.

Chris and Wiggins have never done a perfomance as Alberto in Verbier or others similar moments
And less in an individual effort, becouse SKy in Bellefilles did a TTT

It is deppend what you mean as spectacular, but indicative is if you dont have any reasonable logic to increase your perfomance a lot, or if you make numbers that have no sense as 7 w/kg in 40 minutes.

Santambroglio had not any reason, I could explain more if you want, Froome has, he was latte in cycling, much to learn, and a disease with him two years or even more.
Anyway sky have his own method, you can read SKy is the limit if you are interesting in that (I did not yet), so you always have to be carefull talking about them, becouse you could be right, but that is another reason to maybe not be right.

 

[the sceptic]

If Santa was british and riding for sky or garmin he would be another hero of clean cycling. Your bias is so obvious that its not even funny to read your troll posts.

 

[Spider1964]

Don't all Pro cyclists have a sinus problem?

~ Sir Neophyte

That and asthma

 

[Ferminal]

Will he juice up?

Before today, I would have said no. The benefits would be outweighed by the real risk of a career ending ban.

He is paid by Riis and Specialized to win GTs, or at the very least a highly active 2nd or 3rd. If he's not doping at a serious level then this is impossible, Riis knows that as well as anyone.

Without doping his next contract will be 1/10th of what it currently is, he'd probably be better off just retiring. So if he can get a couple of more seasons on 3-5mil or whatever it is he's actually going to be better off than he would riding out the final 6 years of his career clean.

If he really is under a close watch then doping just a little bit probably still carries some risk. Go hard or go home?

 

[Escarabajo]

Chris and Wiggins have never done a perfomance as Alberto in Verbier or others similar moments
And less in an individual effort, becouse SKy in Bellefilles did a TTT

It is deppend what you mean as spectacular, but indicative is if you dont have any reasonable logic to increase your perfomance a lot, or if you make numbers that have no sense as 7 w/kg in 40 minutes.

Santambroglio had not any reason, I could explain more if you want, Froome has, he was latte in cycling, much to learn, and a disease with him two years or even more.
Anyway sky have his own method, you can read SKy is the limit if you are interesting in that (I did not yet), so you always have to be carefull talking about them, becouse you could be right, but that is another reason to maybe not be right.

Oh dear!

I feel like US Postal 2.0.

If you have a late resurgence you have to find and excuse for it. It is obvious. It is up to you whether you want to believe it or not. They always have one because they have to explain to the media why they sucked when younger. Why they hung on to cars to make it to the top of climbs and to the end of the stage without being disqualified.

Power numbers nowadays is not much proof of nothing. Now everyone go under the maximum power outputs. Maybe because of lower doping dosages. But also you can have a guy like Froome that used to have a maximum power output range of 5.2-5.5 w/kg. Then going to 5.7-6.0 w/kg with doping will not ring the power meter alarm.

BTW, Froome was even under control last year when attacking. If he had truly been unleashed you would not be saying what you are saying now. He was about to go crazy in the mountains when dropping Wiggins. Maybe we could have seen those crazy Verbier numbers again.

 

[vrusimov]

Oh dear!

I feel like US Postal 2.0.

If you have a late resurgence you have to find and excuse for it. It is obvious. It is up to you whether you want to believe it or not. They always have one because they have to explain to the media why they sucked when younger. Why they hung on to cars to make it to the top of climbs and to the end of the stage without being disqualified.

Power numbers nowadays is not much proof of nothing. Now everyone go under the maximum power outputs. Maybe because of lower doping dosages. But also you can have a guy like Froome that used to have a maximum power output range of 5.2-5.5 w/kg. Then going to 5.7-6.0 w/kg with doping will not ring the power meter alarm.

BTW, Froome was even under control last year when attacking. If he had truly been unleashed you would not be saying what you are saying now. He was about to go crazy in the mountains when dropping Wiggins. Maybe we could have seen those crazy Verbier numbers again.

Oh man, I'll let you tell it! 4 Sky riders in the top ten of the time trial looks like US Postal all over again in their heyday. Many of us have seen this act before and frankly, after Armstrong, can we really trust what is written about these riders: cadence, efficiency, weight, power, sickness, cover stories or "marginal gains"? For a long time I never really dug into Armstrong but starting with the Science of Sport data, it all began to unravel...But I will say this and I hope I don't offend you but I do think that given the Garcia interview with Indurain, we need to know if Indurain's dominance was completely legitimate...we need to know this because he set a precedent and that precedent has persisted, albeit with some deviation (Contador and Sastre). This precedent for heavy riders going uphill like Pantani is still present in cycling today. Miguel was certainly talented and he is certainly a "tranquilo" champion of sorts, but I feel like he has a story to tell and I would not mind hearing it.

As for Froome, that silliness he pulled at Tirreno-Adriatico earlier this year reminded me a bit of Verbier and some of Armstrong's great efforts against Pantani and Ulrich. Nibali attacks, Contador covers THEN Froome shoots through them both, almost knocking one rider from his bike! It is hard for me to believe he could not have gone much earlier and really done some damage. Was Nibali really going that bad, when we see how he decimated the Giro? Just some thoughts.

 

[airstream]

I bet even if Sky had signed Schleck, Purito, Cancellara, Sagan and continued to trample the opponents, medcaps would anyway have talked that all this because of doping.

LOL, whats your logic? So to speak 4 great timetrialists blast 3 spaniards (none of them is a specialist in long pancake flat time trials) and it's not normal? Are you ok? That is absolute insanity. Apparenty even if one team will be much stronger than others and push only 1500 w/h uphill, it would be called evil doping. As I see LA case stripped common sense in the clinics very significantly.

Healthy Contador could have lost Froome about 1 min I guess.

 

[clotho2]

Again!!! LOl... why are you people acting as though you didn't read, "The Secret Race." Listen to me, if on the morning of the "Festina Affair" Riders still doped do you think a two yr. suspension would stop one of them? Did you skip the part where Tyler said as soon as his suspension was lifeted and he was back in a race he doped both times. Of course Contador will dope again.

Oh wait... you probably think Oofay was his only connection to being juiced. Okay, keep thinking that.

And now arod may be getting a freakin' slap on the wrist One Hundred days!!! Really?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Oh look Big Dopie is at it again

Taxus is also ridiculous, putting Alberto on the same level as Intxausti. Yea, as if Intxausti doesn't dope

I still maintain that you cannot say Alberto got all his GT wins though doping because this is his real level. That would mean this is a clean Contador in a clean field. And let's be honest, we know that isn't the case.

Not that I think he's clean. His performance in Oman (especially) and Tirreno were impossible for a clean rider.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Oh man, I'll let you tell it! 4 Sky riders in the top ten of the time trial looks like US Postal all over again in their heyday.

Out of curiosity, if we exclude Froome

Which of the Sky riders would you not expect to make it into the top 10?
Also, which riders would you say should def have made it top 10 but finished below them?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Oh look Big Dopie is at it again

Taxus is also ridiculous, putting Alberto on the same level as Intxausti. Yea, as if Intxausti doesn't dope

I still maintain that you cannot say Alberto got all his GT wins though doping because this is his real level. That would mean this is a clean Contador in a clean field. And let's be honest, we know that isn't the case.

Not that I think he's clean. His performance in Oman (especially) and Tirreno were impossible for a clean rider.

So what you are saying is that you don't know how much Contador was doping, how much he is doping now or how much anyone else is?

 

[Ferminal]

Out of curiosity, if we exclude Froome

Which of the Sky riders would you not expect to make it into the top 10?
Also, which riders would you say should def have made it top 10 but finished below them?

If GT is doping I think his performances during the spring are a shocking indictment on the classics winners.

No worries there until he starts climbing like Porte.

Unless you take the view that he grew up on a BC program.

 

[maxmartin]

If GT is doping I think his performances during the spring are a shocking indictment on the classics winners.

No worries there until he starts climbing like Porte.

Unless you take the view that he grew up on a BC program.

GT fell quite a few times in the critical moments in the classics, and he did climb shockingly well in Tour Down Under

 

[B_Ugli]

Just a bit of an insight into hayfever which I have had every summer for as long as I can remember.

Contador claiming he had a bad hayfever day.
You don't just hayfever on one day out of the blue. If you have had hayfever for some years you know pretty much on which month to expect it and you have your eye drops, nasal spray and anti-histamine tablets ready. My wife for example gets hayfever March onwards. I get it end of May beginning of June. As Spring in Europe is a bit late this year she has got her hayfever later this year but like clockwork mine has been the last 2 weeks or so.

Contador claiming his bad result was due to hayfever
As I have already said, if you know you get hayfever you take your meds. I take one cetrazine morning and night. (Especially if the height of your sporting peak season coincides with your hayfever). I did a ride this week which I always do on a Tuesday and looking at the time I did it was no different to what I always do, in fact it was better. The majority of the ride you are breathing through your mouth so if your nose is blocked it makes no difference. The point is that it doesn't make that much difference to your performance if you are prepared for it.

 

[Cookster15]

cookster, I love Alberto as a rider. This is a feeling, I cannot decide to love a rider.

I would like him to be clean, but I know he isn't. Why should I fool myself?

I don't really think many cyclists are clean, and I can't know which riders are, and which aren't doping.

Not that it matters, I like the cyclists I like and admire them. If I dislike any rider that could be doping, I should stop following the sport I guess.

Fair enough, I respect your opinion and I do feel you are genuine - but due to the nature of Professional Road cycling doping is a big problem not helped by us the fans. Pro Cycling is probably better these days than NFL or MLB but worse than archery (as suggested by someone else) and yes worse than football (soccer) because in those sports skill has a bigger part to play than physical superiority. Doping can still provide an edge in those sports but physical is secondary to the skill needed to perform at an elite level (look at Maradona). No matter if the whole peleton is still doping its obvious the gains made from doping are less than in the 90s and less than even 2009. Sub 40 minute Alpe ascents seem no longer possible.

If I think there are riders who are less suspicious than I will support those riders until evidence to the contrary is presented. Right now Contador's lower level this year and ever since his return in the Vuelta does not look good for him IMO. He has had doping clouds hanging over him ever since Liberty Seguros in 2006 and now it is his lower performance that looks bad as despite being in his peak age he seems weaker. And despite all the problems with the UCI, compared with pre 2009 the teams and riders performance is being influenced by the testing. They aint winning the war (Sky?, Santa etc)) but IMO they are generally limiting the doping advantage. That's gotta be a good thing.

 

[86TDFWinner]

I'd be surprised if he wasn't still on the sauce a bit.

 

[SeriousSam]

Chris and Wiggins have never done a perfomance as Alberto in Verbier or others similar moments
And less in an individual effort, becouse SKy in Bellefilles did a TTT


It is deppend what you mean as spectacular, but indicative is if you dont have any reasonable logic to increase your perfomance a lot, or if you make numbers that have no sense as 7 w/kg in 40 minutes.

Santambroglio had not any reason, I could explain more if you want, Froome has, he was latte in cycling, much to learn, and a disease with him two years or even more.
Anyway sky have his own method, you can read SKy is the limit if you are interesting in that (I did not yet), so you always have to be carefull talking about them, becouse you could be right, but that is another reason to maybe not be right.

Once we stop being delusional and recognize that information other than positive tests can be evidence of doping, there's a ton of evidence that implicates Wiggins and Froome as has been discussed ad nauseum in the Sky, Wiggins and Froome threads.

Which is why people who really want to believe the Sky miracle are usually very reluctant to accept anything except positives and confessions as evidence.

 

[vrusimov]

Out of curiosity, if we exclude Froome

Which of the Sky riders would you not expect to make it into the top 10?
Also, which riders would you say should def have made it top 10 but finished below them?

I really could care less...I'm only making an observation...you can feel free to disagree. And I'm certainly not going to waste my time compiling a list for your perusal, personal entertainment or more politic assessments or assumptions...That's the beauty of an opinion, it doesn't require proof...maybe I've read enough in this very forum to be less than receptive toward Sky in general...and marginal gains in particular. Good day to you sir.

 

[vrusimov]

Once we stop being delusional and recognize that information other than positive tests can be evidence of doping, there's a ton of evidence that implicates Wiggins and Froome as has been discussed ad nauseum in the Sky, Wiggins and Froome threads.

Which is why people who really want to believe the Sky miracle are usually very reluctant to accept anything except positives and confessions as evidence.

There are still Armstrong fans who don't believe he ever used PED's. No positive, No dope...except we all know better now. The myth surrounding him is laughable when you step back and read the things that count.

 

[JimmyFingers]

A ton of anecdotal, ambiguous, unquantifiable, simplistic, flawed and myopic evidence against Wiggins and Froome

Which isn't really evidence. Enough for many of course

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I really could care less...I'm only making an observation...you can feel free to disagree. And I'm certainly not going to waste my time compiling a list for your perusal, personal entertainment or more politic assessments or assumptions...That's the beauty of an opinion, it doesn't require proof...maybe I've read enough in this very forum to be less than receptive toward Sky in general...and marginal gains in particular. Good day to you sir.

A bit touchy aren't we?

 

[B_Ugli]

Fair enough, I respect your opinion and I do feel you are genuine - but due to the nature of Professional Road cycling doping is a big problem not helped by us the fans. Pro Cycling is probably better these days than NFL or MLB but worse than archery (as suggested by someone else) and yes worse than football (soccer) because in those sports skill has a bigger part to play than physical superiority. Doping can still provide an edge in those sports but physical is secondary to the skill needed to perform at an elite level (look at Maradona). No matter if the whole peleton is still doping its obvious the gains made from doping are less than in the 90s and less than even 2009. Sub 40 minute Alpe ascents seem no longer possible.

If I think there are riders who are less suspicious than I will support those riders until evidence to the contrary is presented. Right now Contador's lower level this year and ever since his return in the Vuelta does not look good for him IMO. He has had doping clouds hanging over him ever since Liberty Seguros in 2006 and now it is his lower performance that looks bad as despite being in his peak age he seems weaker. And despite all the problems with the UCI, compared with pre 2009 the teams and riders performance is being influenced by the testing. They aint winning the war (Sky?, Santa etc)) but IMO they are generally limiting the doping advantage. That's gotta be a good thing.

Your post is spot on - in the climate you describe an unbelievable performance raises as many eyebrows as a uncharacteristically bad performance both inside the peleton and in the eyes of the public. The press still seem pretty slow to draw conclusions. *At the moment I am reading the David Walsh book and I full understand why the mainstream press don't want to draw any conclusions*

The difference is that in 2013 the public are far more educated (by virtue of the Secret Race and the USADA evidence) to draw a strong assumption about a bad performance occurring at a set time frame prior to a big race.

 

[Von Mises]

Chris and Wiggins have never done a perfomance as Alberto in Verbier or others similar moments
And less in an individual effort, becouse SKy in Bellefilles did a TTT

I do not want to defend Contador here too much, I think he is (or at least was a doper), but I wouldnt put too much emphasis on Verbier . If you remember, who came after Contador : Schleck, Nibali, Schleck, Wiggins, Sastre, Evans and if Vayer´s original claim about Contador was correct (7,0-7,1 w/kg), then it means 6,8-6,9 for A Schleck, ca 6,7 for Nibali, F Schleck, Wiggins and Sastre and so on. In fact, probably every single rider made his personal best on that day in july 2009, including Wiggins. Overall I do not think its plausible, they may be dopers, but to think that they all doped in this particular day more than before or after...