/ Alberto Contador defends 'lynched' legend

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
dale1968 - on 18 Jan 2013
How are the UCI going to deal with AC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20071585
Toby S - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

"At certain times and places Lance is not being treated with any respect."

Good grief.
Neil Pratt - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to Toby S:

I think it's fair to suggest that the Spanish cycling federation seems to have a much more accommodating view on drug use than some other countries. Watching Valverde and Contador steamroller Froome during the Vuelta, it requires a certain suspension of disbelief to imagine that they're achieving 90s style performances in the mountains drug free.

balmybaldwin - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to Toby S:

Worht pointing out this article is from October last year, and not a reaction to last night's confessions.

I do find it odd that AC credits LA with all of the populatrity of cycling in the US, and seems to have forgotten all about Lemond
Chris the Tall - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:
Very odd, given AC's relationship with LA and JB

With enemies like that, who needs friends ?
Dave Kerr - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to Ditch_Jockey:
> (In reply to Toby S)
>
> Watching Valverde and Contador steamroller Froome during the Vuelta, it requires a certain suspension of disbelief to imagine that they're achieving 90s style performances in the mountains drug free.

Although their performances were a bit suspicious it's unfair to draw that conclusion based on comparison with Froome who was not on top form.

Hat Dude on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to balmybaldwin:
> (In reply to Toby S)
>
> Worht pointing out this article is from October last year, and not a reaction to last night's confessions.
>

Well pointed out

Alberto is still right about Lance leaving a lasting legacy for cycling; though perhaps not in the way he meant!
Toby S - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to balmybaldwin:
> (In reply to Toby S)
>
> Worht pointing out this article is from October last year, and not a reaction to last night's confessions.

I missed that, sorry! It still beggars belief when you consider how aggressive LA has been towards any who presumed to question him.
>
> I do find it odd that AC credits LA with all of the populatrity of cycling in the US, and seems to have forgotten all about Lemond

Am I right in thinking he's now the only American rider to have legitimately won Le Tour?
IainRUK - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to Toby S: Why is Lemond suddenly whiter than white.. he had a fair few unbelievable recoveries.. OK he never failed a drugs test.. where have I heard that before?
Chris the Tall - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
There is good evidence that he was the last winner in the pre-EPO era, and that the speed with which he went from winner to no-hoper is quite telling. Of course there were other drugs around at the time, but it was a relatively clean period. Enough big names from that era did fail drug tests at some time or other to give some credibility to his record.
fxceltic on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Toby S) Why is Lemond suddenly whiter than white.. he had a fair few unbelievable recoveries.. OK he never failed a drugs test.. where have I heard that before?

hes also always been very vocal in condemning dopers, especially Lance. FWIW I am convinced he was totally clean, much more so than anyone else, full stop.

his era was not tainted by EPO, though there would have been some steroid abuse, possibly HGH in the later years (by others, not him), its the sort of stuff that was of use mainly in recovery, but which didnt necessarily provide the type of performance gain we saw post EPO. As the post above me says, look at the way he couldnt compete once EPO came in.
IainRUK - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to fxceltic: I really don't get this pre EPO... Simspons.. Merkx.. all pre EPO all doped.. just because EPO wasn't there they still tainted the sport..
Dave Kerr - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to fxceltic) I really don't get this pre EPO... Simspons.. Merkx.. all pre EPO all doped.. just because EPO wasn't there they still tainted the sport..

I agree but the advantage given by EPO was massively greater and a lot of folks feel that makes it worse.

Enty - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

The other thing about the Simpson / Merckx era was the length and difficulty of the stages - check out the 67 tour when Tommy died.
http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1967.html
Almost every stage 200km+ and you weren't even allowed to take drinks from the team cars - even in Provence when it was 38!
When Anquetil said "You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water" even the hardest anti drug person would shrug their shoulders because back then it was probably true.

E
IainRUK - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to Dave Kerr: But the advantage of the other drugs was also significant.. as Enty says..

I'm not overly anti drugs.. I am for myself.. but I'm anti anything.. legal or illegal.. I just find these vague lines in the sand strange..
Lord of Starkness - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty:

Back in the 60's whilst out on the local chain gang towards the end of the summer I spoke to the late Pete Chisman ( Milk Race winner - plus stage winner in Tour de L'avenir) following his ride in the TDF in 67. He was still in shock over Tom Simpson'e death. Whilst saying nothing specific about drug use, he hinted that the continental pro's were 'playing a different game' and that he'd never experienced such sustained speeds on long road stages. Back then it was widely assumed that most continental pros were using some kinds of stimulants.
fxceltic on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to fxceltic) I really don't get this pre EPO... Simspons.. Merkx.. all pre EPO all doped.. just because EPO wasn't there they still tainted the sport..

I understand what youre saying, but following your logic there has almost never been a champion who wasnt using some form of stimulant and cheated in some way. Even Coppi!

For me, theres a clear distinction between pre EPO and post EPO in terms of whether you could compete against the others and still win without doping.

Pre EPO stuff brought about minor improvements in the old you or the capacity to finish a race. They did not make you superman. Those not doping could still compete.
Post EPO you can be a whole new you, capable of things that were totally impossible previously. Those not doping could no longer compete.
Toby_W on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to fxceltic:

Yes pre epo the Ferrari will beat the Ford focus even with a spoiler and an engine re-map.

Post epo the Ferrari is left at the lights wondering what just happened, the focus has already finished but sadly will never race again due to seizing up in the garage over night and dying.

Cheers

Toby
fxceltic on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to Toby_W: exactement
Jimbo W on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to fxceltic:

> I understand what youre saying, but following your logic there has almost never been a champion who wasnt using some form of stimulant and cheated in some way. Even Coppi!
> For me, theres a clear distinction between pre EPO and post EPO in terms of whether you could compete against the others and still win without doping.
> Pre EPO stuff brought about minor improvements in the old you or the capacity to finish a race. They did not make you superman. Those not doping could still compete.
> Post EPO you can be a whole new you, capable of things that were totally impossible previously. Those not doping could no longer compete.

What bollocks. There is no gradation in cheating, you either cheat or you don't. And for that matter what are the estimated gains from say 60s cycling to the supposedly drug free contemporary use of hypoxia tents etc. I'd be very surprised if those who use such devices won't end up demonstrating cardiovascular pathology and earlier than should be deaths. Indeed, i'd wager Wiggos heart would already be the size of an ox's and that ain't good for future longevity. I can't prove this, but time will tell, but if you want to make damage to the body the unjustifiable component that makes cheating so bad, then I don't think you could be sure that the sport is clean now.
ads.ukclimbing.com
alasdair19 on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: I read somewhere that there has been longitudinal studies showing that serious atheletes do indeed die younger cause theire body enitirely legitmatly has taken a beasting? It makes sense I guess.

I guess the key change Lance brought was a professional 365 days a year proably $1million dollar doping programme.

Have any doctors been named? Should their professional bodies be dragging them over the coals? Pharmacists?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.