So how should Contadors palmares be viewed now ?

moray_gub

I am usually one for giving the benefit of the doubt but with his doping ban all but confirmed for me he now joins Di Luca ,Ricco,Kohl et all in the doping rogues gallery. The question asked is how is palmares now to be viewed.........what now his coming off the beach to win the Giro ?.......his winning that infamous Paris Nice prolouge (yes thats for you DaveL) ? his winning the Vuelta by 46 seconds from Levi........his two TDFs one of which was handed to him by the certain winners expulsion and last years Astana infight and beating Fab in that Annecy TT ? As a one time Bertie admirer i have to say i now look at his palmares and cant help but think he has blood doped his way to most of it much like Ivan Basson in fact................yes yes i know i used to defend him but not now that his cheating has been exposed.

shinyhelmut

Well personally my opinion of him hasn't actually changed very much. Ever since he and Rasmussen were playing with the peloton in the '07 Tour I've found his performances hard to swallow.

Aggieboy

I'd suggest with a "small grain of something!!"

ozzzyosborn206

when he beat cancellara in that tt i thought it was a bit suspect, but even if he has got most of his wins while doping, they are still very impressive, he has beaten many other riders who have also doped and probably that saddest part of it is, he would probably have still had nearly as good palmares drugs don't make a superstar out of a chipper

Yellow Peril

The "what if's" are bewildering. If we discount his 09 result on the basis that he serially doped then the person I feel sorry for is Wiggo. He would have made the podium and I seriously doubt he'll ever match that performance again. I feel sorry for anyone who has had the joy of victory taken from them by a cheat.

rockmount

Yellow Peril wrote:

The "what if's" are bewildering. If we discount his 09 result on the basis that he serially doped then the person I feel sorry for is Wiggo....

Yeah .... not to mention the pistol toting ladyboy cheat cost me a packet on a Wiggo podium bet.

blazing_saddles

As before, with scepticism.

donrhummy

As opposed to whom? The problem with all this is that there's no longer a competition with a clear winner. Who here would feel comfortable saying Andy Schleck 100% was drug/blood-doping free? Would you bet your entire net worth on it?

And what are the chances that over a 3-week race (with some tough mountains) that a drug free cyclist could be within only 39 seconds (and a gear malfunction) of a doped rider? You really think doping makes that little of a difference? If so, why take such huge risks for such little return?

iainf72

Isn't this the problem when you give them the benefit of the doubt despite all the evidence?

pb21

Ever since he won that 10k pan flat prologue in Paris-Nice '09 it was as clear as it could be to me that he is a doper.

Pokerface

donrhummy wrote:

And what are the chances that over a 3-week race (with some tough mountains) that a drug free cyclist could be within only 39 seconds (and a gear malfunction) of a doped rider? You really think doping makes that little of a difference? If so, why take such huge risks for such little return?

It's a good question - but the nature of the 'racing' is that there is very little 'racing' at all during that 3 week period. Most of the time is spent toodling along in the peleton.

gethmetal

ShinyHelmut wrote:

Well personally my opinion of him hasn't actually changed very much. Ever since he and Rasmussen were playing with the peloton in the '07 Tour I've found his performances hard to swallow.

+1

DaveyL

Happy to take that apology from you any time, Gubster...

Yellow Peril

Do you think that if the racing could be absolutely guaranteed to be 100% drug free that it would be closer with a greater turnover of contenders?

coinneach

I disagree with most of the posts above.

Its quite common in other sports (eg athletics) for the dope takers to be "past their best" and worried about the "new kids on the block". I think Contador used to be the best but couldn't cope with the prospect of losing. His palmares should stand, and I also think 1 year (when the evidence is somewhat shaky and untried) is fair enough. And I think he's as guilty as Tommy Sheridan, but I doubt if either of them will take it like a man.

deejay

Moray Gub wrote:

As a one time Bertie admirer i have to say i now look at his palmares and cant help but think he has blood doped his way to most of it ............yes yes i know i used to defend him but not now that his cheating has been exposed.

I have learned long ago to be susceptible about any rider that rode in the US Postal/Disco squads. (even Boonen)
To give Bertie some credit is that I like the way he is almost human and how he lost the 2009 Paris-Nice. :roll:

ozzzyosborn206

donrhummy wrote:

As opposed to whom? The problem with all this is that there's no longer a competition with a clear winner. Who here would feel comfortable saying Andy Schleck 100% was drug/blood-doping free? Would you bet your entire net worth on it?

And what are the chances that over a 3-week race (with some tough mountains) that a drug free cyclist could be within only 39 seconds (and a gear malfunction) of a doped rider? You really think doping makes that little of a difference? If so, why take such huge risks for such little return?

it is possible Andy Schleck is doped, but you say a drug free cyclist could be within only 39 seconds (and a gear malfunction) of a doped rider? You really think doping makes that little of a difference? but we now know contador doped so if he was clean how much slower would he have gone, a clean schleck could be 3 mins quicker than a clean contador but 39 secs slower than a doped one. At the end of the day it is all what ifs i think it is best to assume everyone is clean or doped and just enjoy the racing weather it is legit or not

morstar

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

and just enjoy the racing weather it is legit or not

Unfortunately, that is what we are left having to do.

I am convinced AS is doping and for me it is all down to the TT improvements. It was teh tell tell for Basso and it is the tell tell for AS. As others have highlighted, Contadors TTing has produced surprising results but he has always been consistently good so it wasn't a clear indication in itself. When guy's like Basso and AS suddenly improve drastically then it gives the game away.

RichN95.

morstar wrote:

I am convinced AS is doping and for me it is all down to the TT improvements. It was teh tell tell for Basso and it is the tell tell for AS. As others have highlighted, Contadors TTing has produced surprising results but he has always been consistently good so it wasn't a clear indication in itself. When guy's like Basso and AS suddenly improve drastically then it gives the game away.

When did either Basso or Schleck make some giant leap forward in TTing? They've both always been pretty decent.

Schleck came 6th in the final TT of the 2007 Giro (only 50s down on Zabriskie over 43km) and he's generally top 20 in GT TTs. He's not nearly as bad as some make out. Unless I've missed something, I can't remember him suddenly winning one.

Similar story with Basso.

Both are lousy at Prologues though

blazing_saddles

Pat has no doubt. First you get the Spanish fed to take his TDF title, then you look after that old doper, Bjarne:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid ... ing-points

Don't you just love how the UCI play fast and loose with reason and logic?
I bet Dennis and the lads are well chuffed. :roll:

Ron Stuart

It maybe that he was stripped of the 2010 Tour de France he fairly won :!: because...

Has anyone yet proved that he deliberately took PED's?

Should the penalty be the same for those that have proved to deliberately and systematically dope as apposed to someone that has had no proof of deliberately doping presented to them.

In this sport the mere presence of a product in a riders system is a crime, no requirement to prove that there be ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ that you deliberately doped.

So the only way the sport currently differentiates between the ‘deliberate dopers’ and the ‘accidental doper’ is by the length of their ban.

I believe that the current length of ban for deliberate dopers has proven to be not enough of a deterrent and should be extended but there should be more thought put into the need to prove the deliberate intent before giving lengthy bans.

Unfortunately for the fans of the sport we will miss one of the best Grand Tour Cyclists from our screens and I will miss him at the Tour of the Algarve in a few weeks time but both Contador and Bjarne Riis both know how the system currently operates and really there are no surprises here for them.

Just remember how close Andy Schleck came to beating Contador in last years TDF was he doping too :?:

RichN95.

Ron Stuart wrote:

It maybe that he was stripped of the 2010 Tour de France he fairly won :!: because...

Has anyone yet proved that he deliberately took PED's?

Even if (big if IMO), he took it accidentally, he still contravened the rules in such a way that disqualification is the standard punishement.

For a similar example in another sport, see Padraig Harrington in a recent golf tournament. What he did was inadvertant and unknowing, but the rules were broken and disqualification was the standard punishment. He certainly wasn't cheating.

Link: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12051_6681738,00.html

Now, you can argue that the rules are unfair and should be changed, but they are the rules and should be applied until they are changed.

afx237vi

I don't see why this would change anyone's mind or make anyone reappraise anything. You either thought he was dirty before and all his career has been dodgy or you think he got caught on a technicality for a relatively minor offence (he didn't win any races because of clenbuterol, did he?).

Doping in cycling and the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of certain riders has little to do with failing tests.

morstar

RichN95 wrote:

morstar wrote:

I am convinced AS is doping and for me it is all down to the TT improvements. It was teh tell tell for Basso and it is the tell tell for AS. As others have highlighted, Contadors TTing has produced surprising results but he has always been consistently good so it wasn't a clear indication in itself. When guy's like Basso and AS suddenly improve drastically then it gives the game away.

When did either Basso or Schleck make some giant leap forward in TTing? They've both always been pretty decent.

Schleck came 6th in the final TT of the 2007 Giro (only 50s down on Zabriskie over 43km) and he's generally top 20 in GT TTs. He's not nearly as bad as some make out. Unless I've missed something, I can't remember him suddenly winning one.

Similar story with Basso.

Both are lousy at Prologues though

Apologies for the quotes all being Wiki ones but they are a good summary of how Ivan's TT improved substantially from 2004 to 2006 and the timings are factually correct. I can think of another contributory factor beyond the wind tunnel in Mass'.

Basso pre 2004: "Ivan Basso's weakness was the time trial and before the 2004 season he and teammate Carlos Sastre trained in a wind tunnel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to improve their aerodynamic positioning on the bike. The time trial skill of Ivan Basso was one of the main points of improvements over the next years."

Basso 2004 TDF: "In all, he lost a combined 5 minutes and 13 seconds in the two stages."
Basso 2005 TDF: "Basso was still weaker in the time trials, although he had improved significantly when compared to 2004. He lost a collective 3:47 over two time trial stages,"

Basso 2006 Giro: "Following a good performance in the stage 1 time trial, Basso and his CSC teammates won the 5th stage, a team time trial. Basso's first solo stage victory came on the 8th stage, the first mountaintop finish of the Giro, where he countered an attack by Damiano Cunego and rode to the finish by himself. That victory also allowed him to gain enough time on his rivals to put him in the maglia rosa leader's jersey for the first time in the 2006 Giro, a jersey which he would hold on to for the remaining 13 stages.

Stage 11 was a long and flat[5] individual time trial where Basso finished in second place, losing only to former two-time World Time Trial Championship winner Jan Ullrich, beating riders like the Italian national time trial champion Marco Pinotti."

As for AS, maybe I am wrong but I will delve further to either prove myself wrong or validate my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Basso

ozzzyosborn206

so basically what we are saying is noone is allowed to win a race well or improve noticably without being labelled a doper, if you know your weakness is tt i am pretty sure you would make it your goal to improve in them over the winter

RichN95.

morstar wrote:

Basso 2004 TDF: "In all, he lost a combined 5 minutes and 13 seconds in the two stages."
Basso 2005 TDF: "Basso was still weaker in the time trials, although he had improved significantly when compared to 2004. He lost a collective 3:47 over two time trial stages,"

Both 2004 and 2005 had 55km time trials at the end. In 2004 he came 6th. In 2005 he came 5th. The relatives amount time he lost was more down to the form of Armstrong than anything else (Ullrich and Julich both finished in the top five in the final TT both years and lost considerably less time in 2005).

(The other two time-trials were completely different and not comparable).

He was certainly doping, but there was no great leap forward.


2004:
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 1.06.49 (49.39 km/h)
2 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team 1.01
3 Andreas Klöden (Ger) T-Mobile Team 1.27
4 Floyd Landis (USA) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 2.25
5 Bobby Julich (USA) Team CSC 2.48
6 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC 2.50

2005:
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) Discovery Channel 1.11.46 (46.4 km/h)
2 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team 0.23
3 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) T-Mobile Team 1.16
4 Bobby Julich (USA) Team CSC 1.33
5 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC 1.54
6 Floyd Landis (USA) Phonak Hearing Systems 2.02

morstar

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

so basically what we are saying is noone is allowed to win a race well or improve noticably without being labelled a doper, if you know your weakness is tt i am pretty sure you would make it your goal to improve in them over the winter

I do agree to an extent but Basso was a serious contender for GT's for 3 years prior to winning the Giro in 2006. He must already have been close to his peak ability and yet he improved substantially. Are there other similar examples of such improvements from an already established top rider?

Your complaint about my logic is what Wiggins had to contend against. How come a journeyman road rider is suddenly a climber? I think what supports Wiggins case is that the course was more suited to power climbing and the fact he wasn't dancing on the pedals. Had he been, then I would have joined the doubters too.

The sport is tainted and what I was trying to project is that for me, the TT is the real indicator of dodgy practice to me when climbers suddenly improve significantly. Vinos TT on his transfusion was preposterous and lo and behold, busted.[/b]

moray_gub

afx237vi wrote:

I don't see why this would change anyone's mind or make anyone reappraise anything. You either thought he was dirty before and all his career has been dodgy or you think he got caught on a technicality for a relatively minor offence (he didn't win any races because of clenbuterol, did he?).

Doping in cycling and the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of certain riders has little to do with failing tests.

Not always so i was always prepared to give him TBOTD given that the evidence was patchy at best at best but for me his positive is indicative of probable sloppy blood doping which would lead me to think he had been at it for some time.

Bakunin

The question asked is how is palmares now to be viewed........

I think AFX is correct, this has little to do with tests.

The AC/Chicken battle was totally ET.

Beating FC in the TT was tough to swallow.

The key issue is not his palmares, but Manolo Saiz, the Hog and Riis.

dave_1

Moray Gub wrote:

I am usually one for giving the benefit of the doubt but with his doping ban all but confirmed for me he now joins Di Luca ,Ricco,Kohl et all in the doping rogues gallery. The question asked is how is palmares now to be viewed.........what now his coming off the beach to win the Giro ?.......his winning that infamous Paris Nice prolouge (yes thats for you DaveL) ? his winning the Vuelta by 46 seconds from Levi........his two TDFs one of which was handed to him by the certain winners expulsion and last years Astana infight and beating Fab in that Annecy TT ? As a one time Bertie admirer i have to say i now look at his palmares and cant help but think he has blood doped his way to most of it much like Ivan Basson in fact................yes yes i know i used to defend him but not now that his cheating has been exposed.

Nobody had heard of Contador before and then he is suddenly a big winner...at least LA gave about nearly 7 or 8 years notice he would win ...think how Fignon dismisses Riis in hius book...that sums things up.

dougzz

It's viewed exactly the same as it was before the positive. Anyone that contributes here regularly, or watches a fair amount of pro racing really can't be overly surprised at any positive drug test. Sure, a positive for Gilbert or Evans might raise an eyebrow, but would anyone really be shocked if either Schleck or Cancellara got a positive, never mind the 'only thought about it' Basso or Valverde when he returns, I certainly wouldn't. Bertie climbed in the '07 Tour in a manner that screamed doping, the '09 Annecy TT, come on. The only surprise in all this is that the testing got ahead of his program. I'm sure that in time it will be shown that, as has been said many times before, he got caught because they sent the samples to a lab that was far ahead in sensitivity of the self testing they were doing on his own blood he transfused. You can bet all the other's that can afford it will be a lot more careful in their own testing regimes from now on.