Will Contador Be Juiced Up Again Upon His Return

[airstream]

imo, Marti changed the man who had been dismissed before the 2003 Tour (Moral, right?) and worked with Hog for all subsequent years until 2009 at least.

 

[workingclasshero]

oh i have no problem believing contador was being protected by the UCI in his hog days.

Armstrong hated Contador's guts, to me there's no doubt that protection would be gone in 2009.

hell he was even being protected in 2010 and if it weren't for that leak his positive would have most likely been hidden. thankfully it wasn't tho.

on the contrary I would rather think he'd be stitched up like our Ty was and that's how the positive came about.

but realistically it was a case of neither, he simply doped (as you do) and got caught through bad luck, it happens

 

[sartoris]

Well, then we have to agree to disagree. I am one of those who thinks AC's early results is due to a good program and his later results 2007-onwards is due to a Armstrong like program with Bruyneel. I see no reason for why Bruyneel wouldn't give AC the "Armstrong treatment" when LA was gone and none of the other Disci boys seemd up to the task of be the next Tour winner.

So what I am basiclly saying is that I do think AC did dope more/more advanced that Evans. I don't have any facts with which I can back this up other than me believing that JB would countinue with what he used to do with Lance.

By the way, just a question. What are you trying to say with:



That he was so talented he could win the Tour at that age? Because to me it's more of an example on how doped up he must have been seeing he almost could keep up with the Chicken in the mountains while being only 24.

Yeah, basically your whole theory is that Contador had to use doping even to learn to ride a bike. Fairly scientific and undisputed opinion

 

[Galic Ho]

Well, then we have to agree to disagree. I am one of those who thinks AC's early results is due to a good program and his later results 2007-onwards is due to a Armstrong like program with Bruyneel. I see no reason for why Bruyneel wouldn't give AC the "Armstrong treatment" when LA was gone and none of the other Disci boys seemd up to the task of be the next Tour winner.

So what I am basiclly saying is that I do think AC did dope more/more advanced that Evans. I don't have any facts with which I can back this up other than me believing that JB would countinue with what he used to do with Lance.

By the way, just a question. What are you trying to say with:



That he was so talented he could win the Tour at that age? Because to me it's more of an example on how doped up he must have been seeing he almost could keep up with the Chicken in the mountains while being only 24.

Nobody can claim Cadel Evans finished 23 seconds behind Contador on a 'lesser' doping program in 2007 and say it with a straight face. He was close to if not above him doping wise that year. Same with Bottle. They were all about equal in the end. Bottle had the by far best recovery in the third week. He benefited the most. Evans had the fastest mid race chrono after Vino's DQ. Come the final chrono, Evans was second again, faster than Cancellara substantially and yet still losing big time to the winner.

The 24 year old part says enough. As I said, youngest GT winner in some time. Only Andy Schleck has been that good and consistent from such a young age among all the GT winners and podium placers since 2005. If I need to explain how making the podium at 24 trumps 30, then you are beyond my help. I am 30 next month. I remember when I was 24-25...there is a difference. You get stronger. Hence why Contador after was slightly above Evans. I don't think they doped any differently...just natural progression.

Do I need to explain how all major GT winners before EPO showed form young? As I said, people around here need to keep up. Having to go over all the base knowledge again and again just wastes time.

 

[Galic Ho]

Yeah, but I kind of meant that JB had connections with the UCI and all that. Furthermore Tyler said Lance was two years before his competitors program-wise, I see no reason why AC wouldn't have gotten to taste that advantage. That's my point.

Considering all rumours point to Spain and not Italy with Contador, I don't quite see the point.

Levi is the tell. He was the team leader at Disco when AC won the Tour. See what he says about LA in the coming months. There is a reason he deserted the Shack. If he ever says Ferrari was his coach after 2005, then listen. That would indicate Contador could be involved as well.

I can see your reasoning being somewhat valid for 2007, but after? Nope, especially not in 2009. Lets not forget the drama LA staged and the coup de etat he almost pulled off to have everyone work for him and hinder Contador. He believed the win was his. One word to Ferrari and the drug flow stops. So no, I don't think Contador, at least in 2009 and onwards got any supply, assistance or help from Bruyneel, Lance or anyone of their known lackeys and associates.

I don't think he has anything to be worried about coming out from these guys or anyone who feels the need to talk. Pre 2009 could be different though. Plus LA slating AC means he nails himself to the doping board...not gonna happen.

 

[roundabout]

Contador was superior to Evans on just about every climb that mattered in that Tour. Even on the Aubisque where he blew up in the last km he still gained time.

In Tignes Contador was only dropped because of a puncture and in Briancon Evans gained his few seconds because Contador was on the massive attack before.

Despite the neutered Alps and blowing up in the last Pyrenees stage Contador overcame the disadvantage of 110km of time trialing in 2 Pyrenees stages.

 

[Galic Ho]

Contador was superior to Evans on just about every climb that mattered in that Tour. Even on the Aubisque where he blew up in the last km he still gained time.

In Tignes Contador was only dropped because of a puncture and in Briancon Evans gained his few seconds because Contador was on the massive attack before.

Despite the neutered Alps and blowing up in the last Pyrenees stage Contador overcame the disadvantage of 110km of time trialing in 2 Pyrenees stages.

By 23 seconds. All that race showed was riders playing to their strengths. Then Bottle smashing Evans and Contador on the last Pyrenees stage. Contador and Evans had weaknesses that Tour...Bottle got massively better in the final days and the Chicken, well he was always on form.

Remove Vino's crash and the rubbish with the Chicken, well those two would have been fighting for the win with light years between the others and them.

Contador dropped minutes in his chrono. Minutes. He was always good in the chrono. His improved in later years, results wise. Why? Because the guys who were winning against him, that's where the doping boosted their level most. Their area of expertise. Relative to 2007, all major pro's have dropped their benchmarks you could expect to see. That's because of the BioPassport. They're still good, but not AS good as they were in 2007.

What did Evans do? He actually dropped results wise. Was always quite good, but still down on his earlier success. Only reached the 2007 level in 2011. When he won almost every race he entered or was at the pointy end. Contrast, analyse and then deduce what happened. Contador's climbing got a boost from that level of doping, Evans chrono got the boost. Take that away and both dropped in each respective area. Contador still won climbs, but not like in 2007 battling with the Chicken. Evans chrono level dropped back to Contador's or there about and only peaked when he really got his *** together, hence the wins in 2011.

Still stays the same, Contador and Evans were quite equal in 2007 and most people would agree if either rode like they did in 2007, they'd be a shoe in to win almost any GT they entered now. Convincingly. I don't see that happening. 2007 doping > than 2008 and on wards doping. That's because of the BioPassport.

Either way, both are still very consistent riders. If Contador is a major doper, Evans can't possibly compete with him clean. That would make him the most gifted rider in a very, very long time. His stats aren't what Lemonds and Hinault's are. They're very, very good. But not the top 1 of 1000 top pro's competing.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Highest Vo2 max ever scored in the AIS (while still a mountain biker). Check.

And AC is "the most gifted rider ever tested" according to ISM who has tested a whole slew of top riders over the past 2 decades.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Nobody can claim Cadel Evans finished 23 seconds behind Contador on a 'lesser' doping program in 2007 and say it with a straight face. He was close to if not above him doping wise that year. Same with Bottle. They were all about equal in the end. Bottle had the by far best recovery in the third week. He benefited the most. Evans had the fastest mid race chrono after Vino's DQ. Come the final chrono, Evans was second again, faster than Cancellara substantially and yet still losing big time to the winner.

The 24 year old part says enough. As I said, youngest GT winner in some time. Only Andy Schleck has been that good and consistent from such a young age among all the GT winners and podium placers since 2005. If I need to explain how making the podium at 24 trumps 30, then you are beyond my help. I am 30 next month. I remember when I was 24-25...there is a difference. You get stronger. Hence why Contador after was slightly above Evans. I don't think they doped any differently...just natural progression.

Do I need to explain how all major GT winners before EPO showed form young? As I said, people around here need to keep up. Having to go over all the base knowledge again and again just wastes time.

You need to stop pretending you think you know more about human performance in cycling than what you do. For starters you emphatically denied that Evans had the highest VO2 recorded at the AIS and then you cited Brett Aiken who was tested at SASI in Adelaide, not at the AIS in Canberra. So on this fact, you are 100% wrong. Secondly, you can't even get your VO2 units correct. Screams armchair wannabe expert to anyone else who actually does know their stuff.

Secondly, this business about winning your 1st GT at 24 vs 30 is far less relevant than the length of time you spent preparing for it as a fulltime road racing pro cyclist. People like you seem to think you know so much about cycling performance because you learnt it all by reading internet forums and blogs about power output in the past 3 or 4 yrs, but what you don't realize is that 15yrs ago cycling scientists already knew what sort of w/kg were required to perform at the highest level. It was known that Cadel Evans had the potential to win a GT well before he even became a fulltime road pro. It was also known.... as any cycling coach or even cycling aficionado would know, that it takes about 3-5yrs road racing at professional level before you are ready to challenge for a TdF win. Merckx, Hinault, and Lemond were all pro for 3-4yrs before winning their first TdF, and many others were pro for 3-4yrs before placing top 10 in a GT. Fignon was lucky and considered a rarity by being the youngest winner in 60yrs.

When Evans did turn to road fulltime, all of his performances in those early seasons were exactly as to be expected given his CLEAN lab data from years prior. And to this day, his estimated power output on major climbs has never been beyond what he should be capable of clean. In his 1st GT he placed 14th whereas Contador was 30th. And if we DQ all the proven dopers from 2005 then Evans is actually the winner which means that Evans' progression is equal to that of Contador and many of the pre EPO GC riders. The only differences between Evans and Contador or any of the pre EPO GC riders is that Evans started his road racing career about 5-10yrs after they all did, and Evans is not a proven drug cheat whereas Contador is. So in fact Evans' progression is more impressive because he managed to become a clean GC contender in a dopestrong era whereas your hero Bertie was a cheat with his initials on blood bags going back to operacion puerto in 2006. It wasn't until 2011 while under intense scrutiny that he had to lay off the juice. He was soundly beaten by Evans and if you think that a true champion without EPO can't win 2 consecutive GTs then you are the one who needs to go back and revise your "base knowledge" of the sport.

You cite Andy Schleck as your example of "consistency"? Andy Schleck who has never won a UCI pro tour event in the whole season then shows up at the TdF as a man transformed and magically steps up to the podium? The same Andy Shleck who can't even complete a Vuelta following a TdF? He had to withdraw due to a "stomach bug" in 2009 and in 2010 he was in 77th place 37min down when Riis pulled him out. Compare that to any other pre EPO TdF winner most of whom placed top 5 in consecutive GTs at some point in their career. Only Evans and Sastre have managed that feat in the post EPO era and Contador in 2011 if we count his DQ'ed results.

And finally, maybe you should check what the average age of riders in the tour de france was in 2012.... hint... it wasn't 24 or 25. The average age of the entire peloton is a much more powerful indicator of the relationship between age and performance than looking at individual outliers (ie: selected greats of the sport) because every team chooses their strongest line-up. Yes, that's right, about 30yrs of age is the average of the TdF field which would indicate that in general this is when pro cyclists hit their prime. Now compare that to the greats of Ironman triathlon and you'll notice that they are all in their prime at about 30yrs or even older.

Go back to school please Galic Ho. You're not fooling anyone with your pretend knowledge of the fundamentals of elite ultraendurance performance.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

...most of whom placed top 5 in consecutive GTs at some point in their career. Only Evans and Sastre have managed that feat in the post EPO era and Contador in 2011 if we count his DQ'ed results.

Chris Froome?

 

[The Hitch]

Chris Froome?

He might mean people who have won the tdf but if not, then Menchov as well.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

He might mean people who have won the tdf

Good point.

 

[happychappy]

I love reading the incoherent ramblings of "Galic Ho". His misery just flows through his posts, it gives me such a warm fuzzy feeling.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Chris Froome?

Yes! and now add Chris Froome to that list.



@happychappy, this is why I keep coming back to these forums.... it's entertainment. Plus I don't mind letting these tryhard cycling experts know it when they are wrong. Someone has to keep things real.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

He might mean people who have won the tdf but if not, then Menchov as well.

I know he said "post EPO era" (when did that happen? ), but I'm guessing he meant to exclude the CERA era as well.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I know he said "post EPO era" (when did that happen? ), but I'm guessing he wants to DQ results from the CERA era as well.

When I say post EPO era I mean loosely after the introduction of the EPO urine + blood test in 2000. I say loosely because it was still possible to beat these tests, however I have been told personally by Michael Ashenden that from around 2001 onwards the main weapon of choice was autologous transfusions. This is what gives the performance boost whereas microdosing is used to mask the transfusion (since if you don't microdose following a transfusion then you increase the risk of testing positive on the EPO blood test). I thus refer to the Armstrong years up until the introduction of the biopassport in 2008 as the "transfusion era" and I would argue that it was exceedingly difficult to have competed and placed highly across an entire season because you cannot remove and store enough of your own blood in the off season to last the entire racing calendar, and those who did use transfusions only peaked for 1 or 2 races, a lead up stage race and then the TdF.


I did state "TdF" winners but I believe the same argument holds if you widen the criteria to top 5 placing. In that case we can include Froome and Menchov. I find Menchov's performance history interesting more suspicious than Evans though. He has had pretty big ups and downs within a season on a few occasions and even his ITT results vary quite a bit. He has had some consistent performances however also.

One thing I always keep in mind however is that psychology and preparation play a major role in performance. I strongly disagree with the general theme around here that pro cyclists are all robots on exactly the same training program with exactly the same mental state and therefore all ups and downs in performance are solely the domain of a doping program.

edit: whether there ever really was a "CERA" era is idle speculation. We must assume that someone inside of Roche had access during the development phase (ie: before the detection test was ready) and was passing it on to cyclists. I suppose that is possible pre 2008, but by the time it was actually released to market in mid-late 2007 there was a test and they caught those who used it the following season. If there were other highly placed GC riders using it that year in the same races (eg: Menchov) I think they would have been busted as did Schumacher and Piepoli... unless of course they had friends in high places at the UCI

 

[The Hitch]

Wait, you find Menchov suspicious? Because his career has had ups and downs? Yet you spent half the sky thread arguing that there is absolutely nothing suspicious about some riders jumped like fleas from 80th or even 130th on gts to the podium.

I dont see why Menchovs performances are that suspicious in themselves anyway. He is a pure gt rider who for most of his career has had 1 good gt a year. 1 or 2 exceptions but generally that, until 2012 when he was 34.

 

[Ferminal]

Menchov won GTs in 2007 and 2009 but not 2008, hmm

He is dodgy for what we know of him off the bike, nothing about his performances/progression which makes him suspicious above any other GT contender who stepped up in the mid-2000s.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Wait, you find Menchov suspicious? Because his career has had ups and downs? Yet you spent half the sky thread arguing that there is absolutely nothing suspicious about some riders jumped like fleas from 80th or even 130th on gts to the podium.

I dont see why Menchovs performances are that suspicious in themselves anyway. He is a pure gt rider who for most of his career has had 1 good gt a year. 1 or 2 exceptions but generally that, until 2012 when he was 34.

And like so many others on this forum, you take my words and twist them into something else that I did not say. I did not say "I find Menchov suspicious". I said I find Menchov "more suspicious than Evans". What that means is that just like everyone else around here, I have some degree of suspicion for ALL pro cyclists.... even Cadel Evans.

And if you can't understand the difference between "within" and "across" a season and choose to ignore what Michael Ashenden has stated about doping methods from 2000 through 2007 or thereabouts, then I can't help you and I won't bother discussing it with you.

edit: If Menchov was a "pure GT" rider as you say, then I would have expected him to have done better on two consecutive GTs within a season on more than 1 out of 6 attempts. That is unusual when compared to the pre EPO (and pre transfusion) eras. And lets not forget that Rabobank has openly admitted to tolerating doping up until 2007.

 

[the big ring]

Wait, you find Menchov suspicious?

No, no, no Hitch.

His royal PhDness finds Menchov more suspicious than Evans. That is not the same as suspicious, far from it.

Please stop twisting his words.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Wait, you find Menchov suspicious? Because his career has had ups and downs?

He did score 9 on the suspicious index (of course that in itself is still open to interpretation) and hasn't he been involved in a number of alleged scandals involving money laundering, links to doping and Ferrari?

 

[the asian]

He did score 9 on the suspicious index (of course that in itself is still open to interpretation) and hasn't he been involved in a number of alleged scandals involving money laundering, links to doping and Ferrari?

His link to doping is that he rode for Rabo and Rabo tolerated doping/ ran a program and were very good at avoiding getting caught.

 

[Alpehue]

You need to stop pretending you think you know more about human performance in cycling than what you do. For starters you emphatically denied that Evans had the highest VO2 recorded at the AIS and then you cited Brett Aiken who was tested at SASI in Adelaide, not at the AIS in Canberra. So on this fact, you are 100% wrong. Secondly, you can't even get your VO2 units correct. Screams armchair wannabe expert to anyone else who actually does know their stuff.

Secondly, this business about winning your 1st GT at 24 vs 30 is far less relevant than the length of time you spent preparing for it as a fulltime road racing pro cyclist. People like you seem to think you know so much about cycling performance because you learnt it all by reading internet forums and blogs about power output in the past 3 or 4 yrs, but what you don't realize is that 15yrs ago cycling scientists already knew what sort of w/kg were required to perform at the highest level. It was known that Cadel Evans had the potential to win a GT well before he even became a fulltime road pro. It was also known.... as any cycling coach or even cycling aficionado would know, that it takes about 3-5yrs road racing at professional level before you are ready to challenge for a TdF win. Merckx, Hinault, and Lemond were all pro for 3-4yrs before winning their first TdF, and many others were pro for 3-4yrs before placing top 10 in a GT. Fignon was lucky and considered a rarity by being the youngest winner in 60yrs.

When Evans did turn to road fulltime, all of his performances in those early seasons were exactly as to be expected given his CLEAN lab data from years prior. And to this day, his estimated power output on major climbs has never been beyond what he should be capable of clean. In his 1st GT he placed 14th whereas Contador was 30th. And if we DQ all the proven dopers from 2005 then Evans is actually the winner which means that Evans' progression is equal to that of Contador and many of the pre EPO GC riders. The only differences between Evans and Contador or any of the pre EPO GC riders is that Evans started his road racing career about 5-10yrs after they all did, and Evans is not a proven drug cheat whereas Contador is. So in fact Evans' progression is more impressive because he managed to become a clean GC contender in a dopestrong era whereas your hero Bertie was a cheat with his initials on blood bags going back to operacion puerto in 2006. It wasn't until 2011 while under intense scrutiny that he had to lay off the juice. He was soundly beaten by Evans and if you think that a true champion without EPO can't win 2 consecutive GTs then you are the one who needs to go back and revise your "base knowledge" of the sport.

You cite Andy Schleck as your example of "consistency"? Andy Schleck who has never won a UCI pro tour event in the whole season then shows up at the TdF as a man transformed and magically steps up to the podium? The same Andy Shleck who can't even complete a Vuelta following a TdF? He had to withdraw due to a "stomach bug" in 2009 and in 2010 he was in 77th place 37min down when Riis pulled him out. Compare that to any other pre EPO TdF winner most of whom placed top 5 in consecutive GTs at some point in their career. Only Evans and Sastre have managed that feat in the post EPO era and Contador in 2011 if we count his DQ'ed results.

And finally, maybe you should check what the average age of riders in the tour de france was in 2012.... hint... it wasn't 24 or 25. The average age of the entire peloton is a much more powerful indicator of the relationship between age and performance than looking at individual outliers (ie: selected greats of the sport) because every team chooses their strongest line-up. Yes, that's right, about 30yrs of age is the average of the TdF field which would indicate that in general this is when pro cyclists hit their prime. Now compare that to the greats of Ironman triathlon and you'll notice that they are all in their prime at about 30yrs or even older.

Go back to school please Galic Ho. You're not fooling anyone with your pretend knowledge of the fundamentals of elite ultraendurance performance.

Well said, but since when is it a fact that AC refered to Alberto Contador? As far as i know it was never proven, but you might have some sort of knowledge the rest of us dont.

 

[pmcg76]

Snipped

It wasn't until 2011 while under intense scrutiny that he had to lay off the juice. He was soundly beaten by Evans and if you think that a true champion without EPO can't win 2 consecutive GTs then you are the one who needs to go back and revise your "base knowledge" of the sport.

.

I would concur with most of your post except these little bits which you fail to acknowledge but would naturally factor in as a scientist.

The last winner of the Giro-Tour double pre EPO was Stephen Roche in 87, Hinault in 82-85. Fignon almost pulled it of in 89 also.

The first thing I would think is that era was a little different from the present era in terms of the level of preparation for the major Tours(non-doping), surely as a scientist you would recognise that the level of preparation and focus for racing is much more advanced than 25 years ago making it more difficult to complete consecutive GTs in the modern era.

There is also the fact that in the 80s the Giro finished approx 2 weeks later than the modern Giro which of course means there was less time required to hold top form for the Giro-Tour so making the likelyhood of the double more probable.

The Giro's of the 80s had a reputation for being very easy in that the riders cruised along for most of the stages and only raced for the last hour. I recall many riders in the 90s bemoaning the loss of the Giro's of lore where the racing was easy. Obviously the EPO era had arrived by then. Compare that with the Giro of 2011 which was described as one of the toughest routes ever and Contador still dominated by over 6 minutes.

Guys like Roche, Fignon and Hinault all had the Tour as their focus with the Giro a secondary objective. I maybe incorrect in this but I think Contador had the Giro as his main target last year as he didnt know if he was going to be even riding the Tour. Surely preparing for the Giro as primary target is different to preparing for the Tour with the Giro as a secondary aim. It is rarely even attempted anymore.

You noted also that A.Schleck was a prime candidate for doping as he only peaked for the Tour so if we take the Schlecks out and Voeckler who was of course slightly lucky, then Contador would have been Evans nearest challenger and one starting with a 1.42 deficit before a single key stage had even taken place.

Evans did soundly beat Contador but I really dont think you can suggest that both rode the Tour on equal footing. I think your attempts to belittle the effects of the Giro on Contador take away from your overall point which seems to be that Evans is a better clean rider than Contador. Just look at what happened to Evans when he tried the Giro-Tour double in 2010.


If Contador were riding clean last season which you suggest, then it is clear he is truly one of the greats in pro cycling and is very likely to have won the most recent Vuelta cleanly also.

 

[workingclasshero]

His link to doping is that he rode for Rabo and Rabo tolerated doping/ ran a program and were very good at avoiding getting caught.

wasn't his name also brought up in connection with the austrian scandal which included a few xc skiers as well?