Contador's schedule

Daz555

LeicesterLad wrote:

Contador really does bring out the Trolls doesn't he?

All the more reason to hate the dirty cheat!

thomthom

Joelsim wrote:

I can't believe anyone thinks AC doesn't dope. Really? Have you been living in a cave?

Obviously has. Still doping? I'm not so sure.

joelsim

Wasn't the Paris-Roubaix the second fastest of all time? I know it wasn't Contador, but another suspicious character who won it...surely to be faster than the Lance years which we know were a free-for-all on EPO/transfusions etc, it's pretty indicative that something is still happening, even if it's micro-dosing (or even a little engine in Cancellara's bike!)

joelsim

Don't get me wrong, I love cycling but I still have the feeling that most of them are at it to some degree, even with passports. I'm sure you have read The Secret Race, but if not, do so. Shows the scale of the doping and the fact that pretty much everyone was on it, big time. To be that fast now, paniagua, is unlikely isn't it?

LeicesterLad

Joelsim wrote:

Wasn't the Paris-Roubaix the second fastest of all time? I know it wasn't Contador, but another suspicious character who won it...surely to be faster than the Lance years which we know were a free-for-all on EPO/transfusions etc, it's pretty indicative that something is still happening, even if it's micro-dosing (or even a little engine in Cancellara's bike!)

Completely incomparible. Paris-Roubaix isn't a 15km alpine climb. Its a 250+km cobbled race, speed over a distance like that is effected by weather, breakaways, chase-downs, equipment. A race on a nice sunny warm day is likely to be alot quicker than a race over cobbles in rain/ice/mud.

Also - reading through the thread i'm not sure anybody has said Contador is squeaky clean. To think that he is still doping is probably the strangest thing on this thread! Have you seen Contador ride this year? His poor(ish) form? Him being blown away by the Sky boys and just about all the other big hitters?

Yeah he must be chewing that steak all day long eh :roll:


PS. Fastest ever Paris-Roubaix was in 1964 (so not the EPO era) and was 10km longer than it is today.

inkyfingers

LL, don't do it to yourself.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

Wasn't the Paris-Roubaix the second fastest of all time? I know it wasn't Contador, but another suspicious character who won it...surely to be faster than the Lance years which we know were a free-for-all on EPO/transfusions etc, it's pretty indicative that something is still happening, even if it's micro-dosing (or even a little engine in Cancellara's bike!)

And the fastest edition was in 1964. As a tool for assessing the possibility of doping, average race speeds are next to useless.

joelsim

I just can't believe that it's clean after all the books, articles etc that I've read. And don't get me wrong I fully believe most sports are similarly afflicted at the top level. But there is always a way round the system.

joelsim

LeicesterLad wrote:

PS. Fastest ever Paris-Roubaix was in 1964 (so not the EPO era) and was 10km longer than it is today.

Yes, Peter Post who admitted doping in the Tour in 1965...and a different course (yes I know it varies year by year and there are many factors involved)

LeicesterLad

Joelsim wrote:

I just can't believe that it's clean after all the books, articles etc that I've read. And don't get me wrong I fully believe most sports are similarly afflicted at the top level. But there is always a way round the system.

Well then there is no point to this discussion

Seriously, maybe you should stop watching if the enjoyment has gone. We all reserve the right to be critical - after what the sport has churned out in the last 20 years it is just - but if you can't see past it and believe anything ever again then there really is no point watching it.

There are plenty of doping threads on here - maybe look one of them up and get involved in the discussion, I know seeing Contadors name makes everybody froth at the mouth and assume it must be a doping/steak topic but there are better places to discuss the finer points of Paris-Roubaix and doping than this thread!

Paul 8v

Yeah, it does get a bit tiring hearing about steak, the way you've got to look at it is that Contador isn't the only doper/ex doper out there but he is (In my opinion) one of the more exciting guys to watch. It is unfortunately part of the sport until they get someone who isn't a crook in charge of it...

joelsim

I didn't say I didn't enjoy it. Only really got into it about 3 years ago and watch as much as I can. I just find it hard to believe that people think it's clean now

cogidubnus

Joelsim wrote:

I just find it hard to believe that people think it's clean now

I don't think its fully clean- but it certainly is a hell of alot cleaner that it has been

joelsim

I think I would agree with that, smaller doses at least. It's been going on for decades so not likely to just happen. To be honest after reading Tyler & Kimmage books, I personally would have done it in that position. There was no way to get even close to winning without it.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

I think I would agree with that, smaller doses at least. It's been going on for decades so not likely to just happen. To be honest after reading Tyler & Kimmage books, I personally would have done it in that position. There was no way to get even close to winning without it.

In Kimmage's day plenty of people could win clean. A couple of disco biscuits never made anyone a champion.

joelsim

Hmmm, not entirely sure I agree with that

morstar

Joelsim wrote:

I didn't say I didn't enjoy it. Only really got into it about 3 years ago and watch as much as I can. I just find it hard to believe that people think it's clean now

I suppose your time frame of watching combined with your reading may influence your perception.

Not for one second giving it the big, 'you haven't been watching long enough to have an opinion' but...

The riding today is simply far more believable! Throughout the 90's riders did astonishing things on mountain stages that simply look ridiculous in hindsight. There's plenty of stuff on Youtube of guys just dancing up mountains.

Cycling is absolutely not the wild west of doping it was. I personally think it's as clean as any sport can be right now.

joelsim

I know I'm a noob, just interested in people's perceptions these days. I know that mountain stages in the tour have been slower recently which lends credence to less doping being involved. And yes it's absolutely true about my choice of reading possibly adding to my perceptions, but from what I still read regularly is that the authorities are still very shy in trying to stamp things out. From what I can see the general perception is that Cadel and Wiggo won it clean, and I hope that's the case, but it was still very recently that contador was charging up the mountains, and as this thread has suggested, showed him to be an exciting rider. Likewise mr schleck has obviously been bending the rules, and is now suffering. Cancellara is riding very well and from what I've read about him, he's not really very clean either and of course Puerto, yes I know it was a few years ago.

As I said, I'd be interested for views on why you feel that it's very clean, not for any other reason apart from being interested.

morstar

I think if you go back a long way, the doping begins not as cheating but is simply grounded in taking caffeine or painkillers to help you survive a tough sport. Obviously that culture evolves into stronger substances over a period of time but it is absolutely not cheating because everybody is basically doing it and there are no rules to the contrary.
Leap forward a decade or two and you have a culturally ingrained omerta but it's no longer about aiding performance but seriously enhancing physiology using dangerous and unregulated medical procedures.

I have an absolute belief that on a normal probability distribution, only a small minority would choose that path. However, entering a sport with that culture totally ingrained, the minority were those strong enough to resist and refuse to dope.

After years of being dragged through endless scandals, the sport realised it had to change. Through many events, it has. The measure is in the speeds, the style of riding and the open discussion of the issue. People will still get caught as that minority who will always cheat, always will. As long as it's not culturally the norm' everybody else will be somewhere on the scale of would never dope to could dope in the right (or wrong) circumstances. Most people would choose not to, that is human nature!

What really annoys me is some fans hypocrisy. Some of the most vehement anti-dopers bemoan the lack of wild attacks and boring racing of modern cycling. I have far more respect for the view that openly embraces doping than such a hypocritical position despite being firmly anti-doping myself.

thomasmc

morstar wrote:

I think if you go back a long way, the doping begins not as cheating but is simply grounded in taking caffeine or painkillers to help you survive a tough sport. Obviously that culture evolves into stronger substances over a period of time but it is absolutely not cheating because everybody is basically doing it and there are no rules to the contrary.
Leap forward a decade or two and you have a culturally ingrained omerta but it's no longer about aiding performance but seriously enhancing physiology using dangerous and unregulated medical procedures.

I have an absolute belief that on a normal probability distribution, only a small minority would choose that path. However, entering a sport with that culture totally ingrained, the minority were those strong enough to resist and refuse to dope.

After years of being dragged through endless scandals, the sport realised it had to change. Through many events, it has. The measure is in the speeds, the style of riding and the open discussion of the issue. People will still get caught as that minority who will always cheat, always will. As long as it's not culturally the norm' everybody else will be somewhere on the scale of would never dope to could dope in the right (or wrong) circumstances. Most people would choose not to, that is human nature!

What really annoys me is some fans hypocrisy. Some of the most vehement anti-dopers bemoan the lack of wild attacks and boring racing of modern cycling. I have far more respect for the view that openly embraces doping than such a hypocritical position despite being firmly anti-doping myself.

I think that's very well said & quite accurate

andyp

Me too. Very good post.

Richmond Racer

andyp wrote:

Me too. Very good post.

+1

joelsim

To be honest, there were two choices a few years back. Do what Lance does. Or get left behind in more ways than one. It appears to me that the morals had been removed and it was a straight choice. If I want to do well in this sport then I will have to dope, rightly or wrongly. Faced with that decision, it's not hard to see why people choose to do so. Personally I think there should be a line drawn underneath the past, encourage 'outing' with no penalties and then clamp down very hard indeed on people who still choose to do it. Easier said than done no doubt.

Outsider art by Loan

Joelsim wrote:

As I said, I'd be interested for views on why you feel that it's very clean, not for any other reason apart from being interested.

Riders put out significant'y less power than they used to, and their current outputs can be considered 'plausibly unassisted'. So if anyone is taking things they shouldn't, they're taking far less than they might have >5 years ago.

Lots of related reading: http://www.sportsscientists.com/search/label/Cycling

morstar

Joelsim wrote:

To be honest, there were two choices a few years back. Do what Lance does. Or get left behind in more ways than one. It appears to me that the morals had been removed and it was a straight choice. If I want to do well in this sport then I will have to dope, rightly or wrongly. Faced with that decision, it's not hard to see why people choose to do so. Personally I think there should be a line drawn underneath the past, encourage 'outing' with no penalties and then clamp down very hard indeed on people who still choose to do it. Easier said than done no doubt.

I think you're right about the two choices if you go back to the 90's, but wouldn't agree it was quite the same in the Lance era. That was totally skewed situation where one team doped with impunity whilst many others got caught. 98' should have been the watershed moment for cycling but $ signs in 99' derailed that opportunity. However, that discussion belongs in the LA thread.

In principle, I agree with 'outing' the past and drawing a line under it. However, the pragmatist in me actually believes it will just be far too damaging as the media will sensationalise it. Is it just too damaging?
Unless you are genuinely prepared to see the sport adjust massively in terms of governance and finances, it may be a self defeating process. (This may be a good thing, but is undoubtedly a huge step into the unknown)

No easy answers though. I'm curious to know what everybody was doing dopingwise but suspect the sport may be better served if we just move on without airing all the dirty laundry. Plenty of other sports are starting to feel a bit of heat, which should divert some of the attention away from cycling. After all, I suspect many sports are now exactly where cycling was a few years back.

danlikesbikes

morstar wrote:

In principle, I agree with 'outing' the past and drawing a line under it. However, the pragmatist in me actually believes it will just be far too damaging as the media will sensationalise it. Is it just too damaging?
Unless you are genuinely prepared to see the sport adjust massively in terms of governance and finances, it may be a self defeating process. (This may be a good thing, but is undoubtedly a huge step into the unknown)

No easy answers though. I'm curious to know what everybody was doing dopingwise but suspect the sport may be better served if we just move on without airing all the dirty laundry. Plenty of other sports are starting to feel a bit of heat, which should divert some of the attention away from cycling. After all, I suspect many sports are now exactly where cycling was a few years back.

FWIW I think that the media & outsiders see cycling as still somewhat of a 'dirty' sport & what with the issues between the UCI & WADA think that were are damned if we do and damned if we don't. The only issue is that if we don't and another star gets busted in the future cycling will yet again get the blame for 'covering up' drugs cheating.

Think your right that other sports are now being brought to question following the whole Larry affair and it shows or will show if the trials are going the way we think they will should other sports also being brought into this.

No one wants to wash their stuff in public but I think a fresh start can only be made by not ignoring past indiscretions but then we are into another area being the UCI and Pat which is something I start on.

joelsim

If the Puerto trial bags have names put on them then it will happen again anyway. I think you're right about everyone thinking cycling is a dirty sport, before I became interested in it, I didn't even bat an eyelid when someone was busted, it just happened far too regularly so the assumption was that everyone was doing it. And they were only the ones that got caught. I have to say I enjoyed Willy Voet's book, warts an all.

Just feel that the current perception is that cyclists get busted and within a few months they are back racing like it had never happened. Not much of a penalty (although obviously the more times they are caught in any controversy the less attractive they are to sponsors (or Dave B!)

joelsim

Outsider art by Loan wrote:

Lots of related reading: http://www.sportsscientists.com/search/label/Cycling

Great article, and kind of where my views are. Still think there's doping involved, but much less volume!

Richmond Racer

Joelsim wrote:

Outsider art by Loan wrote:

Lots of related reading: http://www.sportsscientists.com/search/label/Cycling

Great article, and kind of where my views are. Still think there's doping involved, but much less volume!

Nobody with half a brain would try to claim that there's no doping whatsover in procycling. As has already been mentioned, doping can never be eradicated out of any commercial sport altogether. There will be positives every year. The only person who knows beyond question whether x or y is doping, is the athlete him/herself, and whoever is directly administering the stuff into their bodies.

joelsim

Obviously none of our lads tho