Contadors Can Of Worms

nathancom

ddraver wrote:

Nasty People..?

True champion, certified heavyweight...

mfin

alanjay wrote:

I'm sure quite a few of us would take Contador a lot more seriously if he overturned his decision to decline a dna test in respect the blood bag marked AC in the Puerto case. Surely anyone innocent would have no problem with a dna test would they?

Exactly. But, after all, Contador was(/is) a doper, anyone who's read up on the subject in detail finds it completely and utterly obvious. To claim he isn't would be from 'not being read up on the subject' or in some kind of denial or trolling.

rick_chasey

Ok.

So you've established Contactor probably doped.

Now what?

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ok.

So you've established Contactor probably doped.

Now what?

More cow based puns?

ddraver

You can't milk that anymore Rich, you ll have a herd of people leaving if you do - a veritable stampede i tell you!

dave_1

I like French Fighters passion for the sport but will
have to disagree re pistolero. As for attacking
my avatar...Laurent possibly paid with his life for
the doping culture.He didn 't rule out the link between
his use of harmful but not very PED methods and his cancer.

nathancom

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ok.

So you've established Contactor probably doped.

Now what?

Carry on in the hope that some people will stop supporting him. He is a cheat plain and simple. Only in cycling is this behaviour accepted and it shouldn't be if sports are to mean anything, and not just descend into wrestling style pantomime.

jerry3571

I think most ex dopers snook back in to the Peleton but some are coming back and winning in exactly the way they did before. The last Vuelta was a good race but sickening to watch AC and Valverde duffing the peleton over. They are free to do what they are paid to do but it just looks so bad. Basso winning the Giro and Vino the Olympics are more problematic races for me.

AC has come back in his old combative style which is fun to watch but to think he's not back on the Juice is incredulous. It does show a lot of arrogance too.

Jy

lloyd_bower

frenchfighter wrote:

RR, Wiggins is riding the Giro not the Tour so Alberto couldn't go pedal to pedal with him at the Tour and I want to see them at the Giro. Also my last sentence says I'd only enjoy watching him take on Sky but if he doesn't go so muh the better.

I have a problem with dopers. I also have a problem with nasty prople. Lance is both, Contador is neither.

Take the blinkers off, Contador is very much a doper like Lance.

rick_chasey

nathancom wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ok.

So you've established Contactor probably doped.

Now what?

Carry on in the hope that some people will stop supporting him. He is a cheat plain and simple. Only in cycling is this behaviour accepted and it shouldn't be if sports are to mean anything, and not just descend into wrestling style pantomime.

You can't like many pro cyclists at all.

dennisn

LeicesterLad wrote:

Those who already hate him should probably steer clear of this thread...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-says-cycling-needs-to-introduce-zero-tolerance-for-dope-cheats

Aslo, it's not been mentioned but December edition of ProCycling with Contador on the cover - the inside article is a good read whether a fan or not, insight into the mind of somebody who races to win rather than to get paid, and I must say very pro-Contador concerning Clengate.

Here in the States there is pretty much zero toleance for drunk drivers. Jail time, big fines, loss of drivers license, hurt or kill someone and you will most likely spend years behind bars. Has this stopped drunk driving? Zero toleance? Nice words but not something that will mean much to someone bent on getting ahead by taking performance enhancing drugs.

OffTheBackAdam

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lopez-c ... federation
Are they taking then piss?

No_Ta_Doctor

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lopez-cerron-gets-prime-cut-at-spanish-federation
Are they taking then wee-wee?

Warning to Rick Chasey: The above link may contain traces of clenbuterol contaminated beef puns.

deejay

No tA Doctor wrote:

Warning to Rick Chasey: The above link may contain traces of clenbuterol contaminated beef puns.

A trace, you mean you can get a ban for a miniscule trace amount. :shock:

bompington

you can get pun-ished for such a minute mis-steak?

No_Ta_Doctor

To be fair to Rick, the steak puns are rather overdone.

bompington

No tA Doctor wrote:

To be fair to Rick, the steak puns are rather overdone.

Rare to see such sense in this medium.

nathancom

Rick Chasey wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ok.

So you've established Contactor probably doped.

Now what?

Carry on in the hope that some people will stop supporting him. He is a cheat plain and simple. Only in cycling is this behaviour accepted and it shouldn't be if sports are to mean anything, and not just descend into wrestling style pantomime.

You can't like many pro cyclists at all.

Oh, there are some great young riders coming through that I like very much. I hope they get to ride clean throughout their careers. I was fortunate enough to grow up watching Lemond who is without doubt my favourite rider and who sparked my interest in the sport. There was something epic about cycling back then that was lost when the drug fuelled machines started dominating. By epic I mean more than just great. You would watch men fall apart in the mountains and really struggle against their own suffering to compete against each other. This was all lost when doping became so much more effective and it really is a shame and to the detriment of the sport. The competitors becoming less fallible has made the sport less entertaining to me, not more.

jerry3571

Ah, young riders; more meat for the pot!! (are we still on the Steak puns??)

I was a newbie fanboy in the Lemond era and doping then was so much better then; so rustic and charming, better than your modern day blood doping. Too calculating these days. I'm sure Paul Kimmage would agree.

rick_chasey

nathancom wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ok.

So you've established Contactor probably doped.

Now what?

Carry on in the hope that some people will stop supporting him. He is a cheat plain and simple. Only in cycling is this behaviour accepted and it shouldn't be if sports are to mean anything, and not just descend into wrestling style pantomime.

You can't like many pro cyclists at all.

Oh, there are some great young riders coming through that I like very much. I hope they get to ride clean throughout their careers. I was fortunate enough to grow up watching Lemond who is without doubt my favourite rider and who sparked my interest in the sport. There was something epic about cycling back then that was lost when the drug fuelled machines started dominating. By epic I mean more than just great. You would watch men fall apart in the mountains and really struggle against their own suffering to compete against each other. This was all lost when doping became so much more effective and it really is a shame and to the detriment of the sport. The competitors becoming less fallible has made the sport less entertaining to me, not more.

Tactics have changed that.

People understand how to ride 3 weeks and they understand going agressively deep on day one of 3 in the mountains is going to be paid for the day after.

Doping doesn't make people suffer less or struggle less.

It just makes them ride faster > with the caveat that some people ride faster on the same drugs than others.

It's like the club run. Join a too fast one, and put your mind to it, and you'll be suffering as much as the pros do. Only they're doing at 40+kph, not 30.

dave_1

I think Wiggins climbing in 2009 tdf was made to look a lot worse than it was as alll 3 on the podium went + and used doping drs. Alberto will not change.

RichN95.

Dave_1 wrote:

I think Wiggins climbing in 2009 tdf was made to look a lot worse than it was as alll 3 on the podium went + and used doping drs. Alberto will not change.

Andy Schleck hasn't done either of these

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ok.

So you've established Contactor probably doped.

Now what?

Carry on in the hope that some people will stop supporting him. He is a cheat plain and simple. Only in cycling is this behaviour accepted and it shouldn't be if sports are to mean anything, and not just descend into wrestling style pantomime.

You can't like many pro cyclists at all.

Oh, there are some great young riders coming through that I like very much. I hope they get to ride clean throughout their careers. I was fortunate enough to grow up watching Lemond who is without doubt my favourite rider and who sparked my interest in the sport. There was something epic about cycling back then that was lost when the drug fuelled machines started dominating. By epic I mean more than just great. You would watch men fall apart in the mountains and really struggle against their own suffering to compete against each other. This was all lost when doping became so much more effective and it really is a shame and to the detriment of the sport. The competitors becoming less fallible has made the sport less entertaining to me, not more.

Tactics have changed that.

People understand how to ride 3 weeks and they understand going agressively deep on day one of 3 in the mountains is going to be paid for the day after.

Doping doesn't make people suffer less or struggle less.

It just makes them ride faster > with the caveat that some people ride faster on the same drugs than others.

It's like the club run. Join a too fast one, and put your mind to it, and you'll be suffering as much as the pros do. Only they're doing at 40+kph, not 30.

I don't think that's quite right, Rick.
Firstly, doping isn't just used to increase speed, it's used to cut down on recovery time. You're quite right that pro cyclists will suffer, doped or undoped, but the doped rider will be able to suffer day after day without breaking.
Secondly, going out too hard on an early mountain stage isn't something that riders have become aware of in the last few years, there's a century of racing experience to let them know that you pay tomorrow for what you do today.

But here's the rub: if doped riders suffer but don't break, they just lose a minute or two, then there's no incentive for a big attack on an early stage. In the past it was possible to break an opponent by digging deep as soon as you hit the mountains - yes, you'd pay the next day, but not as much as he would if you managed to shatter him. The recovery ability of doped riders essentially means that your big attack gains you a few minutes but that your opponent will have a chance to claw them back the next day.

This is exacerbated by rides relying on the comfort of power meters to assure them that what they're doing is sustainable.

In short, I think doping does change the character of cycling, not just the speed.

MrTapir

bompington wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

To be fair to Rick, the steak puns are rather overdone.

Rare to see such sense in this medium.

Why would one cow-tow to the complainers?

dave_1

RichN95 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

I think Wiggins climbing in 2009 tdf was made to look a lot worse than it was as alll 3 on the podium went + and used doping drs. Alberto will not change.

Andy Schleck hasn't done either of these

i meant Frank. Andy has no + or suspect dr. I think
Wiggo was 2nd in 2009 TDF. Pistolero and livestrong have no cred

ddraver

Thems fighting words!

jerry3571

No tA Doctor wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ok.

So you've established Contactor probably doped.

Now what?

Carry on in the hope that some people will stop supporting him. He is a cheat plain and simple. Only in cycling is this behaviour accepted and it shouldn't be if sports are to mean anything, and not just descend into wrestling style pantomime.

You can't like many pro cyclists at all.

Oh, there are some great young riders coming through that I like very much. I hope they get to ride clean throughout their careers. I was fortunate enough to grow up watching Lemond who is without doubt my favourite rider and who sparked my interest in the sport. There was something epic about cycling back then that was lost when the drug fuelled machines started dominating. By epic I mean more than just great. You would watch men fall apart in the mountains and really struggle against their own suffering to compete against each other. This was all lost when doping became so much more effective and it really is a shame and to the detriment of the sport. The competitors becoming less fallible has made the sport less entertaining to me, not more.

Tactics have changed that.

People understand how to ride 3 weeks and they understand going agressively deep on day one of 3 in the mountains is going to be paid for the day after.

Doping doesn't make people suffer less or struggle less.

It just makes them ride faster > with the caveat that some people ride faster on the same drugs than others.

It's like the club run. Join a too fast one, and put your mind to it, and you'll be suffering as much as the pros do. Only they're doing at 40+kph, not 30.

I don't think that's quite right, Rick.
Firstly, doping isn't just used to increase speed, it's used to cut down on recovery time. You're quite right that pro cyclists will suffer, doped or undoped, but the doped rider will be able to suffer day after day without breaking.
Secondly, going out too hard on an early mountain stage isn't something that riders have become aware of in the last few years, there's a century of racing experience to let them know that you pay tomorrow for what you do today.

But here's the rub: if doped riders suffer but don't break, they just lose a minute or two, then there's no incentive for a big attack on an early stage. In the past it was possible to break an opponent by digging deep as soon as you hit the mountains - yes, you'd pay the next day, but not as much as he would if you managed to shatter him. The recovery ability of doped riders essentially means that your big attack gains you a few minutes but that your opponent will have a chance to claw them back the next day.

This is exacerbated by rides relying on the comfort of power meters to assure them that what they're doing is sustainable.

In short, I think doping does change the character of cycling, not just the speed.

I think the modern racing where the GC is decided within a minute or so stems from the Maximum Hematocrit Test being set at 50%. Steroids have been used for years so recovery has not been a problem. I think Power Meters, Heart Rate Monitors and Race radios means that riders know exactly what they are doing. I think these implements should be stopped and the race be decided by the riders on the road. Mistakes happen and riders blow up off their own backs which is fun.
Going back to the Hematocrit test; there is a now a glass ceiling set where riders can blood dope to 49.9% and not get caught. The problems being that riders with very similar Blood Values are turning out the same power output per kilo so we end up with close racing. In years gone by, the Leader would ideally want a 4-5 minute gap on the 2nd place rider so they would be fairly safe if there was a crash or puncture. Evans lost the Vuelta by such a puncture and a closely contested GC is not what any rider would want if they were leading a big race.

Link to the Evans Vuelta puncture and some charming music :shock: -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIvaNrQpCKw

mike6

Nah, Its not as simple as "Below 50% is ok" anymore. With the biological passport system any anomalies in blood values are flagged up.
One side issue seems to be the theory that people who doped consistently in the past retain some of the benefits even when later riding clean. It would appear some of the physiological gains are retained, ie lean muscle mass, oxygen uptake. Not to the extent when juiced, obviously, but some lasting effect.

jerry3571

Someone on here has said that the Hematocrit is still relevant and gave reasons for that.(I've had this conversation before).
The lack of dominance of one rider over another can only be a pharmaceutical matter. As I said, there is little desire for a leading rider to be within 5 minutes of the second place rider. To have a close GC is tactically nonsensical and racing has changed in the last few years without any proper reason behind it. If anyone says Modern Technology or Training then I think that's being lazy. Why would racing change in such a big way??

Jerry

PS- Just a note on the Base Level of a rider (ie 45%) this figure might well be a dishonest figure.
A few years ago, where this Hematocrit Test was in it's infancy, a lot of top riders were suddenly in pretty good form at a strange time of year. The race was the Tour Down Under and considering they had not long been stuffing down the Christmas Pudding and the Tour was some 6 months off, Evans and Armstrong and other top riders were off the front in Breaks in some crazy early season form. The main Test for the year was done in December where the riders were tested for their Bench Mark figures for the year.
Here's LA in some bonkers early season form.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-eGWgQzDLU

PPS- Let's not pretend that the testers are light years off the pharmaceutical technology of the Docs working for these Teams. But my point about GC results being really close, at this point in history, does hint of some interference of some kind.

Nick Fitt

The biological passport is comparatively new. Also, if the 'passport' does show up anomalies, the next decision is whether there is a chance of a prosecution sticking. I read this somewhere from a senior sports doctor, cant recall where though. The inference is on certain occasions, riders may get off