# Is he human? Contador.



## tober1 (Feb 6, 2009)

Just watched Stage 19. I almost feel bad for the guys that he's 'letting win'. 

He blew past the field like they were standing still. Sure a few stages here and there I can understand, but anything resembling a gradient and he's in his own league. He just smokes these guys like they're Cat 4's.

Question: Is he human?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Sure he's human.

What's he got in his blood is the next question...


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

Ibtm.


----------



## tober1 (Feb 6, 2009)

godot said:


> Ibtm.


 figured it would move that way.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

tober1 said:


> Just watched Stage 19. I almost feel bad for the guys that he's 'letting win'.
> 
> He blew past the field like they were standing still. Sure a few stages here and there I can understand, but anything resembling a gradient and he's in his own league. He just smokes these guys like they're Cat 4's.
> 
> Question: Is he human?


The GC time gaps should speak for themselves...the time gap between 4th place GC and 10th place GC is ~3minutes. Time gap between 1st and 2nd GC, 5minutes.


----------



## aengbretson (Sep 17, 2009)

Yes, but only because today he showed some class and spirit by helping a former teammate win. I hate to admit it, but it looks like he's learning how to make and keep friends across teams in cycling.

If he were a purpose-built, grand tour-winning machine he would have gone for the maximum time bonus, "just in case". Still un-freakin-believable given he climbs better than "pure climbers" but can also TT with the best of the GC men.


----------



## tober1 (Feb 6, 2009)

aengbretson said:


> Yes, but only because today he showed some class and spirit by helping a former teammate win. I hate to admit it, but it looks like he's learning how to make and keep friends across teams in cycling.
> 
> If he were a purpose-built, grand tour-winning machine he would have gone for the maximum time bonus, "just in case". Still un-freakin-believable given he climbs better than "pure climbers" but can also TT with the best of the GC men.


Haha, that would be amazing. Contador revealed as a grand tour winning machine. Terminator on a bike? 

I think they could probably program some 'class' into him. Look at Watson from Jeopardy


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> Sure he's human.
> 
> What's he got in his blood is the next question...


That would be my question...and my guess would be...it's not all natural, kind of like a former 7 time TDF champion :thumbsup:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> That would be my question...and my guess would be...it's not all natural, kind of like a former 7 time TDF champion :thumbsup:


Frankly I'd be surprised if ANY of it is natural the way he's riding away from everyone.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Frankly I'd be surprised if ANY of it is natural the way he's riding away from everyone.


Its almost funny how quickly people make assumptions about Contador yet never suspected anything on LA and jumped down the throat of anyone that mentioned anything.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

gh1 said:


> Its almost funny how quickly people make assumptions about Contador yet never suspected anything on LA and jumped down the throat of anyone that mentioned anything.


Where did I ever say he wasn't doped to the gills?

Both of them are as clean as a port-o-john at a texas chili cookoff.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

gh1 said:


> Its almost funny how quickly people make assumptions about Contador yet never suspected anything on LA and jumped down the throat of anyone that mentioned anything.


So lets see...everything that has happened with all the pro riders getting busted and we know that PED's are still in the Peloton, yet Contador can ride all riders off his wheel like it's nothing, then turn around and TT like Cancellara and we are supposed to accept he's riding clean...even though he turned a positive for Clenbuteral? :mad2:

He's already been caught cheating...what's not to suspect?


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

The difference is, at least later in LA's career, we knew that just about everyone he was competing against was dirty. A lot of the riders that Contador is beating don't have the cloud of suspicion (granted there are some) surrounding them that Beloki, Ullrich, Zulle, de Galdeano, Heras, etc. had. As far as I know, Nibali has never been caught up in a scandal. 

As someone else pointed out, there is a massive gap between 1st & 2nd, and then the gaps are a lot smaller. It seems like a pretty level playing filed aside from one rider who's creaming everyone else. Is it really possible for someone at the pinacle of the sport to dominate the way that Contador has been? Are his genetics really that much better than everyone else?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

BAi9302010 said:


> The difference is, at least later in LA's career, we knew that just about everyone he was competing against was dirty. A lot of the riders that Contador is beating don't have the cloud of suspicion (granted there are some) surrounding them that Beloki, Ullrich, Zulle, de Galdeano, Heras, etc. had. As far as I know, Nibali has never been caught up in a scandal.
> 
> As someone else pointed out, there is a massive gap between 1st & 2nd, and then the gaps are a lot smaller. It seems like a pretty level playing filed aside from one rider who's creaming everyone else. Is it really possible for someone at the pinacle of the sport to dominate the way that Contador has been? Are his genetics really that much better than everyone else?


Look at his early career, and you'll see that no, they weren't.

He strangely came to the front after ending up on Discovery. Hmm...


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

In b/4 the move...


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Today's win imo seemed more tactical ("human") than before.Success came heavily by the timing of the attack.

Move sounds inevitable; while Contador seems overly-exceptional and there's a whole lot of hints at what he could be doing, it's also sounding like a fast conclusion.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yes, he is doped*

Of course he is human, just doped beyond imagination


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

BAi9302010 said:


> The difference is, at least later in LA's career, we knew that just about everyone he was competing against was dirty. A lot of the riders that Contador is beating don't have the cloud of suspicion (granted there are some) surrounding them that Beloki, Ullrich, Zulle, de Galdeano, Heras, etc. had. As far as I know, Nibali has never been caught up in a scandal.
> 
> As someone else pointed out, there is a massive gap between 1st & 2nd, and then the gaps are a lot smaller. It seems like a pretty level playing filed aside from one rider who's creaming everyone else. Is it really possible for someone at the pinacle of the sport to dominate the way that Contador has been? Are his genetics really that much better than everyone else?


Eddie Merckx (doper, btw) won a Tour de France by almost 18 minutes and had multiple grand tour wins with larger margins than Contador's current lead. Merckx's genetics and drive were that much better, regardless of the doping.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

nate said:


> Eddie Merckx (doper, btw) won a Tour de France by almost 18 minutes and had multiple grand tour wins with larger margins than Contador's current lead. Merckx's genetics and drive were that much better, regardless of the doping.


Contador could have a *much* larger lead than he does now. How many stages has AC soft-pedaled at the end and let others win at this Giro?


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

Marc said:


> The GC time gaps should speak for themselves...the time gap between 4th place GC and 10th place GC is ~3minutes. Time gap between 1st and 2nd GC, 5minutes.


Time gaps mean nothing, unless you're just grasping at straws because you don't like the guy that's winning,


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

godot said:


> Time gaps mean nothing, unless you're just grasping at straws because you don't like the guy that's winning,


Find a post where I have expressed dislike at Contador. He's been playing the gentleman card simply letting other folks get stage wins by a handful of meters and soft-pedaling at the line...when if he wanted to he could drop the peloton whenever he put the hurt on.

I call fishy things fishy.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

Marc said:


> Find a post where I have expressed dislike at Contador. He's been playing the gentleman card simply letting other folks get stage wins by a handful of meters and soft-pedaling at the line...when if he wanted to he could drop the peloton whenever he put the hurt on.
> 
> I call fishy things fishy.


Sorry, there are just a lot of people here that look for any excuse or reason to bash AC (see the bike change thread). My apologies.

I just fail to see anything fishy in the time gaps. Take a look at podium time gaps at the Tour over the last 25 years. They're all over the map. 2002 Tour looks a lot like this years Giro (that may not be the best argument with regards to doping, actually). Other years the top 3 are within a minute of each other (AC/Kloden/Levi? I think). I may be missing something, but there just doesn't seem to be a lot of correlation there.

Scarponi knows he can't catch AC, so he's better marking Nibali to protect the 2nd step. AC winning by 10 instead of 5 is a lot less important than not falling to third.

There are a lot of dynamics to a GT, doping including.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Marc said:


> Contador could have a *much* larger lead than he does now. How many stages has AC soft-pedaled at the end and let others win at this Giro?


Exactly. The difference between 1st and 2nd is meaningless. No one has even tried to pull back time from him on GC for a week or so. So if he wants to storm off the front and get more time, let him go. As you say, it could be worse! But second place is second place regardless of what the time gap is.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Marc said:


> The GC time gaps should speak for themselves...the time gap between 4th place GC and 10th place GC is ~3minutes. Time gap between 1st and 2nd GC, 5minutes.


Maybe, but I'm not sure what they're telling us. Coppi, Koblet, Clerici (never heard of him myself), Gaul, Merckx, Hinault, Bugno, Simoni have all won by more than 5 minutes. Heck, Coppi beat Bartali by 23 minutes in 1949, with the 10th place finisher more than an hour back. It's not at all uncommon for the 10th place guy to be as far back as Rujano is here. I think we can all agree that Contador is on a different level than Simoni, and if Simoni can win by more than 5 minutes (twice), I'm not sure that Contador--already arguably one of the top 10 or 15 riders ever--doing so tells us much. I'm not arguing that Contador is clean (any more than I'm arguing that Nibali and Scarponi are clean), I'm just saying his current margin over the others doesn't seem very telling to me.


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

For me its not any individual stage (mostly brilliant) but his phenomenal recovery to repeat his dominance day after day. I think this is the most suspicious aspect of his performance. Put this thread in the doping forum and someone there will doubtless give chapter and verse on how PED's affect recovery of endurance athletes.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

You have to be a little careful about comparing winning time gaps today to past races. The amount of rider support has changed dramatically over the years. A flat today will often not cost a rider anything (or at best, less than a minute), while in older days each flat could cost a rider 5 or 10 minutes. Or more if he'd already used up his spare(s). Training has also become hugely more scientific which, theoretically anyway, puts everyone on a bit more of an even playing field from at leas that standpoint compared to years past when training programs and diet were all over the map.

One question on Conti is does he have natural or developed physiological traits that would point to his being able to perform at a massively higher level?


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

Well, he does move his body in a very unusual way up the climbs, with his trademark dancing on the pedals style. Have to say this likely contributes highly to the ability to rapidly respond and decrease fatigue on the long climbs.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

He also keeps up a high cadence which helps him not to burn out too fast and allows faster recovery.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

robdamanii said:


> Look at his early career, and you'll see that no, they weren't.
> 
> He strangely came to the front after ending up on Discovery. Hmm...


really?
http://velonews.competitor.com/2005/10/bikes-and-tech/tech-report-the-heirs-of-indurain_9083

by the way, he is going to crack any day now right?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

BAi9302010 said:


> The difference is, at least later in LA's career, we knew that just about everyone he was competing against was dirty. A lot of the riders that Contador is beating don't have the cloud of suspicion (granted there are some) surrounding them that Beloki, Ullrich, Zulle, de Galdeano, Heras, etc. had. As far as I know, Nibali has never been caught up in a scandal.


most of those were not in any trouble at the age of 26 either.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Doped or not, Contador, Mercx..and yes....Armstrong are supremely talented riders that even if doping didnt exist at all....would STILL be at the top of the sport. 

THAT is why *I* still watch.


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

Be logical people.
Contador is in much, much, much better form than he was last season. If he is allowed to race against Schleck in The Tour this year, he will murder him.
Last season he could barely beat Schleck, so something was definitely wrong with him. Last season he was caught with an absolutely miniscule amount of illegal substance in his blood that could not have given him a performance boost.
In my opinion, unless he is clinically insane, there is no way on this earth that he is doping this season! He is being watched like a hawk!!!

Live with it guys - he is, by far and away, the greatest stage racer since Indurain.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

den bakker said:


> really?
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2005/10/bikes-and-tech/tech-report-the-heirs-of-indurain_9083
> 
> by the way, he is going to crack any day now right?


Then why was he never a big winner before then, smart ass?

His ONLY CG win prior to '07 (his discovery years) was Setmana Catalana in '06. 

If he was what they made him out to be, he would have been dominating everything from the time he hit the scene to now. Seems like he "came out of his shell" in '07.


As for your second smarmy little jab, I already stated in another thread I was incorrect. Being that shot full of dope, cracking is a pipe dream that I wish would come true.


----------



## PLAYONIT (Aug 25, 2009)

He has sucked the life out of the Giro for me (one exception is watching the little man Rujano)...... I have been fast forwarding through the race on all the up hill finishes to see when he would jump because it has become so predictable.... In this day and age of super athletes I find it hard to believe that there is only one dominant rider and no one can stay with him? 

Also, the gifting of stages when it is so evident he would/could win it leaves a bad taste in my mouth... gifting the stage is one thing but to quote " I let him win today for his hard work for me at Astana" some things are better off left un-said

So now that it appears he will be riding the TDF if he wins...and I don't see why not the way he's going now... does he go for the triple and ride the Vuelta?? if he wins all three I might never watch another race...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

albert owen said:


> Be logical people.
> Contador is in much, much, much better form than he was last season. If he is allowed to race against Schleck in The Tour this year, he will murder him.
> Last season he could barely beat Schleck, so something was definitely wrong with him. Last season he was caught with an absolutely miniscule amount of illegal substance in his blood that could not have given him a performance boost.
> In my opinion, unless he is clinically insane, there is no way on this earth that he is doping this season! He is being watched like a hawk!!!
> ...


Autologous transfusion of clen tainted blood. Has nothing to do with the actual drug found.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

InfiniteLoop said:


> You have to be a little careful about comparing winning time gaps today to past races. The amount of rider support has changed dramatically over the years. A flat today will often not cost a rider anything (or at best, less than a minute), while in older days each flat could cost a rider 5 or 10 minutes. Or more if he'd already used up his spare(s). Training has also become hugely more scientific which, theoretically anyway, puts everyone on a bit more of an even playing field from at leas that standpoint compared to years past when training programs and diet were all over the map.


OK, but it hasn't changed that much since Bugno and certainly not since Simoni.



InfiniteLoop said:


> One question on Conti is does he have natural or developed physiological traits that would point to his being able to perform at a massively higher level?


Well, he has won five grand tours so far. I suppose you're asking something else, but that fact does seem relevant to the question whether he has traits that point to him being able to perform at a very high level. People are making much of the fact that Contador is superior to Nibali and Scarponi. Which maybe is not all that surprising considering that Contador may be one of the top 5 riders ever.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

robdamanii said:


> Then why was he never a big winner before then, smart ass?
> 
> His ONLY CG win prior to '07 (his discovery years) was Setmana Catalana in '06.
> 
> ...


He had a brain aneurysm in 2004, so that was a bit of a wasted year. When he came back in 2005 he had a pretty good run for a young pro (he was only 22 at the time) and '06 was another partly wasted year due to being implicated in Puerto and missing the Tour.

It's a pretty silly thing to try and prove his genetics would have made him dominant then and dominant now. He was riding for Manolo Saiz when he was 16. If he won the U23 world championships that year it wouldn't be a conclusive sign of anything...


----------



## penn_rider (Jul 11, 2009)

I do not know what to believe anymore. Apparently it is easy for some to get away with. Can there be this much difference between these riders at this level? I did not like it when LA did it either and asked the same question then. Loved it more when the men seemed like mortals having a great day.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

albert owen said:


> In my opinion, unless he is clinically insane, there is no way on this earth that he is doping this season! He is being watched like a hawk!!!
> 
> Live with it guys - he is, by far and away, the greatest stage racer since Indurain.


The same stuff was said about Armstrong and look where we are with him now 

As for Indurain...He was right up there with Mr. 60% when it comes to PED usage. His wins all took place at the height of the EPO use since there was no testing and no hemocrit limits.

Your argument holds no value at all.

In this day and age, when you see a performance like this it leaves very little doubt about PED usage. Given it's still prevalent in the peloton and he's that much better than everybody else...is there really a question.

You sound like everybody that has tried to defend Armstrong over the years :mad2:

He's been caught with a failed PED test, been implicated in Operation Puerto and is putting out Super Human performances against the best riders in the world...what more does one need to figure it out? :idea:


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

harlond said:


> I suppose you're asking something else,


Yep, like his natural VO, ability to off lactic acid naturally, etc. Things about his body that would point to his being able to do phenomenal feats naturally.


----------



## penn_rider (Jul 11, 2009)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Yep, like his natural VO, ability to off lactic acid naturally, etc. Things about his body that would point to his being able to do phenomenal feats naturally.


Lets pose this. Only speaking of recent pro history, but, would you not say that he is riding not only heads and shoulders above everybody else, more like buildings above. If it were natural, his performance would have always been like this, however it has not. I think that not one rider in their prime could hold a candle to this display. It is awful disheartening; I wonder what the rest of the ranks are saying. 

But,, what about the possibility of PED's? Was there enough time for him to taper off of it, before known testing during this race? We already heard that riders who did would skip a race to get the PED out of their system. If not, could there be something new that a test will not find?
I kinda hate talking about this instead of the sport itself. Guess this is what the sport has become..
I also find it troubling that these threads have not been moved..


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

robdamanii said:


> Then why was he never a big winner before then, smart ass?
> 
> His ONLY CG win prior to '07 (his discovery years) was Setmana Catalana in '06.
> 
> ...


He 22 in 2005 right? 
He was 24 winning the first GT, Ullrich was 23. 
Did I mention a massive blood clot in the brain when Contador was 21? An 8 month break to due to surgery tends to slow people down a bit.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

*Enjoy the race fellas...*

How drab to read the same old comments day in and day out.

I'd do a search for "he was doped to the gills" but I'm too lazy. It wasn't whimsy the first 200 times someone posted it.

Now it just seems like a bunch of bitter enthusiasts who wish the world was a perfect place.

Enjoy the sport fellas. The reality is these stages are the toughest in history and doped or not, these are amazing feats.

I'm starting to become one of those spectators who simply appreciates the race. I could care less how that is achieved, through the use of superb technology or superb medicines.

Let us also not forget, we could all pump EPO into our ass and still not perform at any level close to these elite athletes no more then hit a home run, knock down a linebacker or obtain an Olympic gold.

You give drugs way too much credit, they really do not contribute as much as some of you make it out to. They are as much an advantage as using a 800g carbon frame versus a 1800g steel one, yes, an advantage still but really by how much?

Now go back to enjoying the actual event. I'll continue to enjoy the forum, but the same fellas posting the same comments every day is still pretty drab indeed.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

penn_rider said:


> I also find it troubling that these threads have not been moved..


Reality is PED's touch on every aspect of cycling (and most other sports). Many people, myself included, spend zero or very little time on the doping forum so fortunately mods don't over-react to every single mention of doping and are judicious with their moves so that normal discussions can continue. You cannot have a discussion about any riders or teams performance without doping becoming part of it and it'd be unfortunate to move every single one to the doping forum. Is this a thread about Conti's performance or is it a thread about doping. I'd say performance.


----------



## izzyfly (Jul 10, 2009)

PLAYONIT said:


> So now that it appears he will be riding the TDF if he wins...and I don't see why not the way he's going now... does he go for the triple and ride the Vuelta?? if he wins all three I might never watch another race...


I myself would still be watching just as I watched when the only game in town was LA when he was winning year after year .

The old cliche, 'Don't hate the player, hate the game', fits very well in this sport of stage-racing. Let's enjoy the sport, it may be another superstar in 10 years, for now it is AC.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Reality is PED's touch on every aspect of cycling (and most other sports). Many people, myself included, spend zero or very little time on the doping forum so fortunately mods don't over-react to every single mention of doping and are judicious with their moves so that normal discussions can continue. You cannot have a discussion about any riders or teams performance without doping becoming part of it and it'd be unfortunate to move every single one to the doping forum. Is this a thread about Conti's performance or is it a thread about doping. I'd say performance.


Once upon a time people were banned for hijacking race topics with doping talk. I prefer it this way. 

Is he human? That seems like an invitation to talk about all aspects of his performance.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

carbonLORD said:


> Let us also not forget, we could all pump EPO into our ass and still not perform at any level close to these elite athletes no more then hit a home run, knock down a linebacker or obtain an Olympic gold.
> 
> You give drugs way too much credit, they really do not contribute as much as some of you make it out to. They are as much an advantage as using a 800g carbon frame versus a 1800g steel one, yes, an advantage still but really by how much?
> .


You started out making sense and then you lost if and show how unaware and naive you are about PED.

Yes, you still need the hand eye coordination to hit home runs. Still need the muscle to and efficiency to run a 100mm sprint. Power to generate 550W in a TT,how to read an offense to make a great play on defense. You need the right body/muscle structure to show up 300lbs ripped on stage.

Yet, you NEED talent, genetics and ability. BUT PED make every better!

yes, Barry Bonds would have broke the HR recored anyways. But NOT with that many monster shots. LA still might have one 7 TDFs as he proved he was better.

But PLEASE don't compare PED with a 800g CF frame to a 1800g steel frame as reference.

If you have ANY first hand or actual knowledge of PED, you would not have made that DUMB statement. PERIOD! They exist and are taken everyday for a reason.

PED have been part of cycling and sports since DAY 1! Almost every great athlete you watched or admired was doped on something to some point. Yes, speed is a PED.
Doping is as much part of cycling racing culture as any thing else. Doping is cycling always exited and always will Cheating has existed in sports since day 1 and always will be there.


----------



## penn_rider (Jul 11, 2009)

carbonLORD said:


> How drab to read the same old comments day in and day out.
> 
> I'd do a search for "he was doped to the gills" but I'm too lazy. It wasn't whimsy the first 200 times someone posted it.
> 
> ...


You only touch the surface then. If you cannot understand the complexity of the sport then you dismiss much of the problems associated to the competition. This is the same thing that happens when Baseball is discussed. Doping is a cancer that will ruin the sport(s). Of course these guys/gals are above our par and rightly so, but to shrug off the problem will only diminish the accolades that we place on their shoulders..


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Reality is PED's touch on every aspect of cycling (and most other sports). Many people, myself included, spend zero or very little time on the doping forum so fortunately mods don't over-react to every single mention of doping and are judicious with their moves so that normal discussions can continue. You cannot have a discussion about any riders or teams performance without doping becoming part of it and it'd be unfortunate to move every single one to the doping forum. Is this a thread about Conti's performance or is it a thread about doping. I'd say performance.


So true and I agree. Racing on bikes and doping go had in hand. Having a doping forum is pointless. You would not have racing with out doping. I am not talking about Pro's either. Amateur Cycling and Sports are also riddled with dopers!

Even 20+ yrs ago when I played football, my High School coach told me where and what to take steroid wise to I would get better and bigger if I wanted to play in college. I never did at the time and that's why you don't see 117lbs running back in college or pro sports even when you run a 4.4, LOL.

You don't think riders on Conti teams don't dope? hell, even golfers and swimmers dope.

I can also tell you form first hand knowledge that some think Auto racers are doping in Indy, Nascar and F1!


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

My views on doping/cheating have been stated. If found guilty - lifetime ban + draconian punishment for the rider's team - end of story.

In the meantime we are obliged to go with what we see or we end up going crazy with speculation and usually uninformed opinions: This rider did this/took that blah, blah, blah.

When Armstrong was winning he was cheered by most. It seems now that he was one of sports all time great cheats. If this is so, then send him to jail/hang him up by his goolies - good riddance.

Now Contador is winning. He is the current best. Enjoy it OR watch another sport. If it turns out that he is a *proven* cheat - ban him for life/send him to jail/pull his fingers off one by one/make him live in Scotland for the rest of his life - who cares. By then, I'll hope to have someone else to admire and cheer.


----------



## JohnHenry (Aug 9, 2006)

contador learned motorized doping from cancellara


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

albert owen said:


> My views on doping/cheating have been stated. If found guilty - lifetime ban + draconian punishment for the rider's team - end of story.
> 
> In the meantime we are obliged to go with what we see or we end up going crazy with speculation and usually uninformed opinions: This rider did this/took that blah, blah, blah.
> 
> ...


Clenbutador IS a proven cheat. He just has friends in high places that "influence" people and get them to say "oops, we really meant that..."


----------



## MSDos5 (Jun 3, 2010)

I'm with you


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

He's human, and doped. At least, it looks that way. I figure if he had wanted to, his lead wouldn't be a bit over 5 minutes, it would be more like 20. He's riding *way* above the others. They look wiped, he still looks fresh. There's no way that's natural recovery. IMO, he's had some sort of chemical or biological help.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

*Dirt Child, do you have first hand experience with PED's?*

I disagree and my comparison is indeed based on ZERO experience as I have no reason to take PED's.

If a bunch of bitter armchair experts can rant endlessly, then surely I can too, from another perspective.

Armstrong did one thing that the rest of his (busted) comrades did not, he cycled consistently throughout his career. There was rarely a Floyd Landis moment where he rode like garbage one day and then stomped the field the next. Hell, the guy even retires, comes back and still made the podium. I think he would have won 7 regardless (so you can REBUTTAL in CAPS LOCK that I believe in Santa Claus as well if you like).

My impression is that many people here do not know much about aerobic thresholds, etc etc etc and give PED's more credit then they are worth, or, they pawn off great achievements in cycling to PED's at any given moment, and where is the enjoyment there?

Your statement reinforces my viewpoint. In fact, you sound like one of those drab ESPN reporters that thinks anyone can ride a bike at that level if they are doped up and discredit the strategy, skill, technology and all of the other aspects that make the sport of cycling in the same league as other sports that require a skill set.

It's all good DB. I do not need nor want to be "SMART" when it comes to PED's.

Your dumb friend, cL.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

I'm not shrugging off the problem, it is there. I'm simply saying where is the enjoyment when anytime anyone does anything remotely resembling greatness, it is discredited with "oh he must be doped to the gills" and I feel that the use of PEDs is overrated.

But, if cycling totally sucked, none of us would even be here right?


----------



## FlandersFields (Jul 16, 2010)

I think it's a mix of both talent and dope. I do believe he is better than the rest. But I think at the Tour, you'll see he won't be that much better. The last decade, there's been a significant difference between the Giro and the Tour when it comes to the level of the contestants.

As much as I'd like to believe that Contador is better than the rest, there have been allegations all along his career, almost from the moment he started professional biking. And we all know why Clenbuterol is used, so...

Summarize: he's better than the rest, with or without doping. But his consistency is probably the fruit of PED's. 

Anyway, who cares about ****ador when you have Gilbert.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

there were some numbers going around last week, contador's w/kg was less than chris horner

says more about horner than contador imo if you know what i mean


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

carbonLORD said:


> I disagree and my comparison is indeed based on ZERO experience as I have no reason to take PED's.
> 
> If a bunch of bitter armchair experts can rant endlessly, then surely I can too, from another perspective.
> 
> ...


CL, again you made my point very clear on the matter. You KNOW what I meant about "dumb" on the subject. So lets use ignorant, so you understand better.

This has NOTHING t do with being an "arm chair expert" which I am not. Let's leave it a t that. But I know enough and plenty of how PED affect human performance. Its basically medical facts.

What statements? I agree with you on many points. Like you said, LA trained his backside off and harder than others. I also feel his will to win and will power were greater than any athlete we have seen in your lifetime.

Again, you made my point. Take 2 subjects with identical everything from bodies, will, training, etc. The one using PED will do better. Its simple fact and science.

LIke I said, Barry Bonds would still have hit all those HR, because he had the ability to do it. But all those drugs made him stronger, period. The balls that would have hit the warning track, now left. 400 foot shots became 500ft hits.

Get it? :thumbsup: 

Yes, if you got on PED and as well as most people here, it would not guarantee you would make a TDF team.

Sorry, but your analogy holds NO water and is based on nothing.


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

Oh com'mon guys, Im not sure why you are surprised that after scouring the world for its best cyclists, taking 200 of that group and lining them all up beside each other for the start of the Giro, that one of them is about 5 standard deviations apart from the rest. 

I think there's as much difference between AC and the rest of the group and the rest of the group and me! He has been playing with them for the past 3 weeks. This is not even hard work for him while the rest of them are struggling just to race this brutal 3 weeks.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

biobanker said:


> Oh com'mon guys, Im not sure why you are surprised that after scouring the world for its best cyclists, taking 200 of that group and lining them all up beside each other for the start of the Giro, that one of them is about 5 standard deviations apart from the rest.
> .


I think I know where that probability distribution was drawn from....


----------



## JohnHenry (Aug 9, 2006)

den bakker said:


> I think I know where that probability distribution was drawn from....


muddled subjectivity


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

The time gap itself isn't meaningful at all. As others have mentioned Merckx frequently made AC time gaps look pathetic. What is meaningful is the way he does it. Even Merckx was often dropped by the specialist climbers of his day by large margins. When Robert Millar tried to improve his TT ability his climbing went to hell and vice versa for the non-climbers. Nothing they had in that era changed their basic characteristics as riders. 

In the 90's with EPO suddenly the best climbers became decent TT riders, the generalists became top climbers and the difference in ability between specialties generally diminished. But what none of the climbers in the 90's could do was win a TT (and even Indurain could still get dropped on a difficult climb).

Though his species isn't in question, or even his talent, whatever AC is doing it's about as natural as a pornstarlet exiting the plastic surgery clinic, and it seems even better than the unfettered EPO days. To me nothing Floyd or others ahve talked about using explains it. Maybe combining thyroid hormone precursors, HGH, T, microdosing EPO, transfusions, ED drugs, and insulin and.... results in something more than the sum of the parts but more likely to me is that it's no longer a level playing field at all and only the very top can afford the clinical (and legal and political) expertise to continue with the best "preparation".


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

terzo rene said:


> In the 90's with EPO suddenly the best climbers became decent TT riders, the generalists became top climbers and the difference in ability between specialties generally diminished. But what none of the climbers in the 90's could do was win a TT (and even Indurain could still get dropped on a difficult climb).



The only rider I've ever seen climb like Contador was Marco Pantani. In 1998, Pantani blew the legs off of everyone on the climbs in the Giro & Tour, and finished third in the final tt of both races. In the Giro, 3rd behind Serguei Gontchar & Massimo Podenzana, & in the final tt of the Tour, he finished third behind Jan Ullrich & Bobby Julich :nonod: Look what Pantani was up to.

It's nearly impossible to compare race margins in Grand Tours before the early '90's with those of today. Someone mentioned team support, which is a big factor, but the biggest difference was the advent of race radios. Before the Lemond era, riders would have to get gap info from race officials on motorcycles, team cars, or people on the side of the road, etc. On a long crowded climb, a rider could go miles without getting an accurate time gap to the riders they were chasing. Now with race radios, a rider can know exactly how far ahead the leader(s) are and use the info to judge their pace. Team cars even have tv's in them nowadays!! A team director can even see how well their opponents are riding. Raymond Poulidor wished he had a radio. With all of the advances in technology, training, diet, dope, etc., Merckx's era was like the stoneage compared to today.


----------



## vismitananda (Jan 16, 2011)

BAi9302010 said:


> The only rider I've ever seen climb like Contador was Marco Pantani.


I doubt that.

Pantani is much more talented climber than Contador.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

vismitananda said:


> I doubt that.
> 
> Pantani is much more talented climber than Contador.


 Absolutely agree. Anyone who could get Charlie Gaul to come out of his cave after 40 years is the real deal.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

Contador is not human. He is Divine.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

vismitananda said:


> I doubt that.
> 
> Pantani is much more talented climber than Contador.


Speak for yourself. Also, you took my quote out of context. I've been following/watching professional cycling since the Pantani era and I haven't seen a rider climb as consistently dominant since Pantani in '98. There have been plenty of riders who could blow open a race on a given day, or during a single Grand Tour, but no one has climbed as consistently year round. Armstrong, Heras, Jiminez, Virenque, Simoni, etc. all had major races where they looked bad. Contador hasn't looked bad in a major race that I can think of in a couple of years.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Pantani#Alleged_drug_use...

"Matt Rendell's biography of Pantani suggests Pantani used recombinant erythropoietin (rEPO) throughout his professional career. It alleges that seasonal levels of hematocrit from several sources showed variations which exceeded those possible naturally, and that Pantani's great victories were probably with levels up to 60 per cent."

I never said that Contador was a better climber than Pantani, but I'm sure if we pumped enough epo into Contador's system to bring his hematocrit up to 60%, he could have gone pedal stroke for pedal stroke with Pantani in his prime. Pantani had superb natural talent, but a better example of what he actually had without max epo was probably the 2000 Tour, where he looked much more human. By then they had at least tightened the reigns on what he was using, and his consistency went out the window. One day Pantani drops the peloton in reaction to the Armstrong debacle, the next day he gets dropped badly himself and quits the race (the 2000 Tour was also the last time that Pantani really flew). 

Bjarne Riis was known to have had a hematocrit of 60% in the '96 Tour when he toyed with Indurain & the field before dropping them like nobody's business. EPO is extremely dangerous without the right supervision and most riders didn't push their EPO use to the limit. It's like playing Russian Roulette. The ones that did were usually the arrogant big stars that could afford a doctor to monitor their red blood cell levels 24/7. For most riders, the risk of dying of heart failure or a stroke, due to a blood clot, was not worth the risk maxing out their EPO use. Keep this in mind when you look a the spectacular feats of the "great" cyclists from the '90s before measures were taken to control erythropoietin abuse.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

carbonLORD said:


> My impression is that many people here do not know much about aerobic thresholds, etc etc etc and give PED's more credit then they are worth, or, they pawn off great achievements in cycling to PED's at any given moment, and where is the enjoyment there?


Definitely agree. People tend to assign too much weight to PEDs. As if the only reason someone won a race was PED. But it takes enormous amount of talent and a lot of very very hard work - and in a lot of cases PEDs simply get to higher fitness level by allowing you to put even more hard work.

What we sometimes forget is that PEDs may make a difference between Contador and Schleck but they won't make Cavendish climb even close to them, or JRod time trial much better than he does now. And that Boonen or Petacchi can climb much better than any cat 1 that we know. There is a huge gap in talent, but also in amount of training between the most fantastic riders that we know or see on local and even often national level and the slow-poke domestiques at the Tour. And PEDs may make the difference, but only by a few spots here and there. They will not make a cat 4 into grand tour contender, in fact cat 4 is very likely to remain cat 4 even with all PEDs that their body can handle.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

55x11 said:


> Definitely agree. People tend to assign too much weight to PEDs. As if the only reason someone won a race was PED. But it takes enormous amount of talent and a lot of very very hard work - and in a lot of cases PEDs simply get to higher fitness level by allowing you to put even more hard work.
> 
> What we sometimes forget is that PEDs may make a difference between Contador and Schleck but they won't make Cavendish climb even close to them, or JRod time trial much better than he does now. And that Boonen or Petacchi can climb much better than any cat 1 that we know. There is a huge gap in talent, but also in amount of training between the most fantastic riders that we know or see on local and even often national level and the slow-poke domestiques at the Tour. And PEDs may make the difference, but only by a few spots here and there. They will not make a cat 4 into grand tour contender, in fact cat 4 is very likely to remain cat 4 even with all PEDs that their body can handle.


This is a great point but you're comparing apples to oranges. At the professional level of cycling there should be a pretty level playing field amongst each group of specialists. All of the competition involved in reaching this level weeds out the riders with a genetic disadvantage. Humans are humans and it's highly unlikely that there would be a single rider with a head and shoulders physical talent advantage over everyone else in a Grand Tour (obviously its possible with race tactics, but that's another story). 

You also can't lump all PED's into one category. The amphetamines that Anquetil & Merckx used were far less effective than epo or blood transfusing. EPO has the same effect as a blood transfusion and will give a user an advantage of several minutes over the course of a Grand Tour, compared to a rider that isn't using. There was an interview with David Millar a while ago where he stated the benefits of epo use. Essentially what he said was that it didn't eliminate the physical or mental pain involved in a particular effort....what it does is allow you to sustain the effort longer and recover from the effort more quickly. Basically, epo increases a riders genetic limits synthetically, by increasing the number of oxygen-carrying red blood cells produced by their circulatory system.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

BAi9302010 said:


> This is a great point but you're comparing apples to oranges. At the professional level of cycling there should be a pretty level playing field amongst each group of specialists. All of the competition involved in reaching this level weeds out the riders with a genetic disadvantage. Humans are humans and it's highly unlikely that there would be a single rider with a head and shoulders physical talent advantage over everyone else in a Grand Tour (obviously its possible with race tactics, but that's another story).


Not quite. There are basically three categories of riders, regarding their response to EPO use.


High responders
Low responders
Those that suffer from serious side effects

Most likely there is something like a bell curve if someone did a large study of athlete's response to EPO. I'm not aware of such a study - but clearly there are doctors that have a good handle on this knowledge.

Low responders don't see a large improvement in performance due to EPO use. Those that suffer serious side effects just can't take the drug.

High responders see much great performance gains and suffer from less fatigue from stage to stage. It appears as though the number of high responders is a minority of the peleton. Therefor, in fact, there can be some riders that are head and shoulders above the rest.

If we suppose that there is a group of very high responders, let's call them the 'six sigma boys' (perhaps a half a dozen riders in the European pro peleton), we are talking about a very small group of riders that can actually win a GT (excluding 'bad luck', poor tactics and crashes).

Now for various physiological & psychological reason it seems apparent that some of these very high responders can't TT with the best or out sprint the best climbers at the end of a long climb.

Contador, is obviously a climbing talent to begin with. But, he is also up there, or even better than, the TT specialists at GTs. Add to that his ability to sprint well after a long climb - and what do we get? A very talented bike rider who has been engineered to become a super-human on a bike. He may possibly be 'one of a kind' at the moment.


----------

