Wilier wrote:
It would be both funny and sad to see Contador and Froome duke it out, full retard, at the Tour this year.
Funny because they don't know/care how obvious it is.
Sad because this is still possible in this day and age.
This, we will see bigger dope show than with Lance and Ullrich, complete full retard mode expected. I am only sad that Kreuziger is part of this, but i lost all my illusions about Roman already with teams he rides for and all that Ferrari stuff known about him.
Yes, i evolved into complete cynist watching the dopeshow.
It is a healthy thing for you to finally "evolving" into a cynist watching a dopeshow. As i have said many times earlier, as long as the conditions and terms a equal (relatively equal in terms of dope for instance), i am fine with it. Being equally doped, or equally clean should leave us with the same result and nice racing.
If you are right about being a bigger dope show than Lance vs Ullrich, then we are in for some spectacular and fantastic racing in the near-future
Shonak wrote:
People were way too quick to judge Contador on "bad" year, a guy that won a Grand Tour merely weeks after he came back to the sport. He is/was the most successful, active stage racer, and, like I said in the 2014 Prediction thread, I'm pretty sure he will win the Tour. Or at least, I'm hoping for it a lot.
In any case, there is no "rise of Contador back to the top" because he was always top.
So, do we need to look differently on when riders develop 20's--> peaks end 20's--> stagnate--> and then starts to decrease in form, fatigue and capabilities (30s) ?
Riders peak of course differently, prime example Purito or... jeez, Horner. Cancellara also seemingly appears stronger here and there if you ask me. There are lot of other examples that can be used against it though. I suppose truly great riders will always be great though, one "bad" year isn't gonna change a damn thing about it.
I am with you on this one. It is a shame that im too lazy to find all the scientific and psyhiological arguments made last year after the TDF, judging and concluding AC out.
When I last year said this about late peaks and primes, the evidence showed the opposite. Hence, a GT winner was in avg 28 or something like that. And it was actually more an exception being a GT winner in mid 30s.
Well it is nice to see that many of the big names are performing spectaculary even though they are well above 30s.
Purito and Valverde seems to get better every year, just adding that little marginal gain each year.
Well, you somehow forgot that Contador started his "peak" and awesomness much younger than for example Purito. Stage racer cannot be super awesome from 20 years of age till 35, at least not clean...
There is no possible way to enjoy this years TDF other than to embrace the dope show, treat it like WWF and laugh your arse off at the return of a Full Retard race around France
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
Just like there were people writing off Cavendish after his bad Tour (I guess the those people forgot about his Giro) or Isso who was almost 100% sure that Cancellara wouldn't win a monument anymore.
Being equally doped, or equally clean should leave us with the same result and nice racing.
If only it worked like that. Unfortunately it will have different effects on different people, not to mention the possible health risks, (think Armstrong cancer).
Strydz wrote:
There is no possible way to enjoy this years TDF other than to embrace the dope show, treat it like WWF and laugh your arse off at the return of a Full Retard race around France
What a narrow minded view. Every elitesport has dope involved to a certain degree. Sprinters has been tested positive the past 2 decades for AAS, the same goes for NHL players + HgH products. Whether it is heavily dope or injury healing dope, it is everywhere in elite sport.
Why do you have this eagerly need to "know" that the race you are watching is "clean"? .. The quality, the experiences, the spectalucar attacks etc. is amazing to watch - dope or not it should not affect the "show" you are seeing, or whatever entertainment you are into.
fosforgasXIII wrote:
Just like there were people writing off Cavendish after his bad Tour (I guess the those people forgot about his Giro) or Isso who was almost 100% sure that Cancellara wouldn't win a monument anymore.
Being equally doped, or equally clean should leave us with the same result and nice racing.
If only it worked like that. Unfortunately it will have different effects on different people, not to mention the possible health risks, (think Armstrong cancer).
Yes that is true, also the theorys about Froome being a super-responder. Health risks is on their own, they know what they are getting into, and have to take the sides like a man. Nobody forced them to dope, only the will and lust of being the "best" .
Being equally doped, or equally clean should leave us with the same result and nice racing.
If only it worked like that. Unfortunately it will have different effects on different people, not to mention the possible health risks, (think Armstrong cancer).
Yes that is true, also the theorys about Froome being a super-responder. Health risks is on their own, they know what they are getting into, and have to take the sides like a man. Nobody forced them to dope, only the will and lust of being the "best" .
If everyone doped to just to be 'equal' that's basically forcing someone, is it not?
It means those who are morally, religiously etc obliged to not take drugs would be at a severe disadvantage.
Being equally doped, or equally clean should leave us with the same result and nice racing.
If only it worked like that. Unfortunately it will have different effects on different people, not to mention the possible health risks, (think Armstrong cancer).
Yes that is true, also the theorys about Froome being a super-responder. Health risks is on their own, they know what they are getting into, and have to take the sides like a man. Nobody forced them to dope, only the will and lust of being the "best" .
If everyone doped to just to be 'equal' that's basically forcing someone, is it not?
It means those who are morally, religiously etc obliged to not take drugs would be at a severe disadvantage.
Depends on your ambitions doesnt it? If you are aiming at the very elite, aiming for glory, fat paychecks and success, yes you have to dope.
And yes the moral athletes are definately at severe disadvantage, unfortunately !
Strydz wrote:
There is no possible way to enjoy this years TDF other than to embrace the dope show, treat it like WWF and laugh your arse off at the return of a Full Retard race around France
What a narrow minded view. Every elitesport has dope involved to a certain degree. Sprinters has been tested positive the past 2 decades for AAS, the same goes for NHL players + HgH products. Whether it is heavily dope or injury healing dope, it is everywhere in elite sport.
Why do you have this eagerly need to "know" that the race you are watching is "clean"? .. The quality, the experiences, the spectalucar attacks etc. is amazing to watch - dope or not it should not affect the "show" you are seeing, or whatever entertainment you are into.
How is it narrow minded? Of course it affects the way I watch it, if I want fantasy then that rubbish like WWF or Game of Thrones is the way I'd go but when it comes to cycling I would rather watch people pushing to the limits of what the human can do and not what the right "doctor" can do. I love cycling but not so much pro cycling, there are aspects that are enjoyable but I don't have a favourite fanboy like rider or team, I don't get patriotic about my country's riders but what I do care about is that the are cheating to gain an advantage, being juiced up is not needed for the sport to be exciting. Yes this years Tour will be dope V dope and a farce but I hold out hope for actual human endeavour along the way. Still don't get the narrow minded call
Oh and I have no interest in other sports as they bore me no end
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Well, you somehow forgot that Contador started his "peak" and awesomness much younger than for example Purito. Stage racer cannot be super awesome from 20 years of age till 35, at least not clean...
20 to 35, who are you talking about now? Contador is top since 2007 and he's currently 31. So that's about 7, 8 years of quality, not 15 years of super awesomeness.
And like people on daily or various forums have pointed out he apparently sucked and must be on the decline and would never come back after 2013 and so on and on. So it's probably more like 6-7 years of quality in the eyes of most.
However, stuff that aside, all that and general Doping-accusations, I actually wonder about it in general now: Why can't a stage racer be great for a decade or more? Clean or not. Isn't that what he trains for and specializes in? That he copes with the demands of a Grand Tour in a way that allows him to be competitive over a large period of time? In fact, stage racer more than any other "discipline" in cycling have to keep an eye on their consistency because we all know that one bad day ruins your Grand Tour, and we might as well say that one bad year ruins your reputation as well. So just wondering why you think that is the case?
Additionally, I guess the most important feature for me personally is that a truly great rider first and foremost has consistency in his performance. That's important in any sport. That those very best of any sport are every year competitive. Be it Contador, Cancellara or Cavendish, the three grand C of modern Cycling. Of course, crashes, bad winter training et cetera must be taken into account. But that's their yearly form. After all, form is temporary, class is permament.
Edited by Shonak on 09-04-2014 16:44
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
Well since the end of the TDF 2013 i've been saying that next year Contador would beat Froome in a lot of races and maybe even in the TDF, and one part has certainly come true because Froome couldn't even keep up when the mountains arrived in Catalunya. I think Contador will for 2-3 years still be considered a favourite for a GT
And like many people on PCMDaily have already pointed out he sucked and was on the decline and would never come back in 2013
he doesn't suck at all
firstly just girls do that
secondly after the bann contador return was awesome.he was more bold.attacking more times,becomed a little unpredictable
plus in tdf 2013 he didn't care about a 2nd place.win or show
that's how it will be and this tdf 2014
I just can't see Contador beating Froome in the TdF. The only way it could possibly happen is if Saxo engineer something miraculous on the cobbles, but I doubt something would happen of the magnitude required to offset losses in the mountains/TT.
superider2010 wrote:
secondly after the bann contador return was awesome.he was more bold.attacking more times,becomed a little unpredictable
plus in tdf 2013 he didn't care about a 2nd place.win or show
that's how it will be and this tdf 2014
I fully agree with you there. However, my impression over the internet forums was that people thought that he wouldn't come back and he clearly did by now. I must admit though that my phrasing wasn't quite the best so I edited a bit.
Edited by Shonak on 09-04-2014 16:43
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
Since my opinion was expressly requested, not that it's anything more than a random person's opinion, but anyway...
I don't have a crystal ball, nobody has, and I'm not a psychic, nor an insider, so I have no clue what's going on with Contador nor with Team Sky's riders these days. It's only guessing. Some guesses are probably closer than others, but so far we lack perspective. Remind me to think about it again in a couple of years, we'll probably know more then.
I don't really buy the ageing theory for Contador, I'd rather subscribe to the "can't/couldn't dope well enough" one. Again, it's just guessing. I fully agree with Tinkov's lack of morality, he'll win at any cost, the rest is not his concern.
One more thing : so far this season we've not really had 40-60 minutes long climbs, which is the relevant effort duration for TDF GC guys. We've not had so many numbers from Contador either, so it's hard to tell if he's already performing like what's needed to win a TDF or if he's just above others but at a TDF top-10 level or something like that.
On the other hand, connecting the dots, it seems there's something fishy at Sky. Either there's some new test around that has flagged Henao and forced them to go easy on the dope aspect, either they've suddenly messed up racing schedules, form peaks schedules, etc. Hard to believe.
At the moment it looks like Contador will be in a league of his own in July whereas Froome will barely be able to keep up with the others.
But here again, we couldn't see Froome perform on the relevant effort durations.
And, as Strydz, if I wanted to see some fantasy, I'd rather watch WWF or something, rather than a parody of cycling. Or perhaps Moto GP could do, since it's a two wheelers non humanly powered formula.
Edited by Aquarius on 09-04-2014 21:31
Shonak wrote:
However, stuff that aside, all that and general Doping-accusations, I actually wonder about it in general now: Why can't a stage racer be great for a decade or more? Clean or not. Isn't that what he trains for and specializes in? That he copes with the demands of a Grand Tour in a way that allows him to be competitive over a large period of time? In fact, stage racer more than any other "discipline" in cycling have to keep an eye on their consistency because we all know that one bad day ruins your Grand Tour, and we might as well say that one bad year ruins your reputation as well. So just wondering why you think that is the case?
I think isso and Aquarius covered this pretty well some threads ago, so I'll just quote them:
issoisso wrote:
Aquarius wrote:
you don't mean Contador has reached the age of old. Pretty please.
It's not about being old.
The earlier you become a top rider, the earlier you start to decline. That's always the case. Look at Cunego
For example, Sagan is amazing for a 23 year old, but it's unlikely he'll be a great rider by age 31. Contador is likely experiencing decline already. It's just the way it is. Petacchi was still top at 35 because he didn't turn into a top sprinter until age 29 or so. And so on, etc. etc.
Heck, let's go back to the best of all time. Merckx was world champion at 22. Before he was 30 he was finished. At 31 he retired, unable to get results.
Aquarius wrote:
issoisso wrote:
Even they aren't full exceptions.
Boonen has lost his sprint, and other than one season working with the magical Ibarguren he's been nothing like his former self since 2009.
Valverde isn't the rider he once was. 2005 Tour, even 2006 Vuelta.
Freire prolonged his career due to not racing nearly as much as others. It's something many have done. Armstrong being the main example.
I'm quoting your message, but this is more of a general answer.
I'd say getting old affects several parameters, such as motivation, or more broadly : mental skills.
It also affects the physical potential by changing explosive or intermediate twitches into intermediate or slow twitches. Better for endurance, worse for explosiveness. And explosiveness is used for any effort that lasts 5 minutes or shorter, which is what could be called "money time" in cycling races.
So, though they're potentially becoming better cyclists overall, they're losing what it takes to be a winner.
Not much can be done to solve the second one, but for the first one, as mentioned above, racing less or changing teams or racing schedules might help solving the matter.
Concerning Contador's decline, who has said only last year he wasn't so good? Compare the 2007~2009 Contador the 2010, 2012 and 2013 one. Already in the 2010 Tour he wasn't as good as earlier, usually putting short and usually ineffective attacks. However it could be that 2010 was an off-year, since in 2011 he dominated the Giro with ease and also did well on the Tour. But in post-ban 2012 and 2013 he resembled the same pattern as 2010, so it does indicate he could well be declining, yes.
Ybodonk wrote:
Spoiler
The Hobbit wrote:
Ybodonk wrote:
The Hobbit wrote:
Being equally doped, or equally clean should leave us with the same result and nice racing.
If only it worked like that. Unfortunately it will have different effects on different people, not to mention the possible health risks, (think Armstrong cancer).
Yes that is true, also the theorys about Froome being a super-responder. Health risks is on their own, they know what they are getting into, and have to take the sides like a man. Nobody forced them to dope, only the will and lust of being the "best" .
If everyone doped to just to be 'equal' that's basically forcing someone, is it not?
It means those who are morally, religiously etc obliged to not take drugs would be at a severe disadvantage.
Depends on your ambitions doesnt it? If you are aiming at the very elite, aiming for glory, fat paychecks and success, yes you have to dope.
And yes the moral athletes are definately at severe disadvantage, unfortunately !
I don't have much words except for: are you serious?
Thanks a lot for the posts luigi. Very Interesting. I also just took a look at various palmares of Merckx, Hinault and Indurain and they all had like 6 to 8 years of excellence. In that case, Contador is still within the usual standards I guess.
Of course, to be a contender in Grand Tours takes its toll on a rider and by now I suppose that there is probably a limit of natural physical (and psychological?) limit of Grand Tour a man can ride and contest as a serious contender. Regardless of the age they turn into a star or when they get too old. Of course, I have never ridden a Grand Tour, so I can only assume of how troubling and demanding such a tour can be.
About the decline: Tour 2010 didn't really go in his favour. I'm still sure though that he could have settled it all on the Col du Tourmalet back then. As for 2012, he came back without nearly no race practice and won the Vuelta (although with some major smarts and luck). Too little to call it a possible sign of decline, but neither a dominat year. In my opinion, 2013 remains still as the only year since 2007 that saw no Grand Tour win and thus he clearly lacked form last year, however he still doesn't lack the general quality (well - technically 2010 & 2011 didn't see Grand Tour wins either but you know, for the sake of the argument ).
@Aquarius:
One more thing : so far this season we've not really had 40-60 minutes long climbs, which is the relevant effort duration for TDF GC guys. We've not had so many numbers from Contador either, so it's hard to tell if he's already performing like what's needed to win a TDF or if he's just above others but at a TDF top-10 level or something like that.
Yup. All climbs, except maybe the foggy catalunya stage without tv coverage, were rather short but steep as hell. The mountain at Contador's first stage win at Tirreno-Adriatico was maybe rather long too? Not so sure. The only real indictator ahead of le Tour will be probably Criterium du Dauphine?
For me personally it's nice to see him winning again. Mind you, I think most people said at Tirreno-Adriatico that the competition was missing and Quintana wasn't in form. At Catalunya, the climbs were perfect for Purito, while Froome was still missing practice. And now in Basque country, Valverde might be too aggressive looking and thus favors Contador? So basically there's everywhere a plausible explanation and there hasn't been too much out of this world (which would be weird in March/April anyway?).
Add to the racing itself the fact that Contador really, really profits from Tinkoff in the regard that the team is no longer depended on sponsor stuff in winter and thus no longer depends on Contador's presence at events and such. He can fully focus on training and recovery in winter.
Additionally, I suppose that his new coach, that Ex-Sky guy De Jongh, has his share too. I once read that Contador was allowed to create his own training schedule or something like that. He did change his mind after 2013, so that could be another legitimate reason for his recent success? A real and (still) clean change in the training programme. I'm not sure though about the validity or if I remember it right, and of course I'm aware that this could all be the usual lies.
About that whole doping stuff: It may very well be the fact that he's still doping and turned up the juice again.
I hope he's not since I consider him an amazing rider. I guess it's very likely though, and I wouldn't like it. If he dopes, I hope he gets caught.
And I think it's not smart to want to have a Armstrong vs Ullrich show again, or Contador vs. the Chicken, or whatever other doped-up duel you can think of. Surely, great rivalries like Boonen vs Cancellara help this sport alot. But a doped-up competition would again majorly harm cycling in the end run. Basically, it'd ruin the sport once more (regardless of the obvious cheating and legitimate, rightful arguments against doping).
Honestly, I want cycling to be successful and to see people excited about it, and that is only possible when doping plays no role at all in it and people can believe in this sport. Jeez, I sound like a preacher now but for me, I'd like to believe in Contador and I havn't seen a performance yet since he returned that I wouldn't consider legit, regardless of me being naive or whatever
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
I don't think Contador wasn't exceptionally good in the Giro of 2011, was just participating against a lesser field. Any Tour winner would dominate the Giro if he's good. A good Froome would win the Giro with 8-10 minute advantage (maybe less this year with Quintana). Two months later in the Tour he could barely follow his rivals, and if it wasn't for that Alpe d'Huez stage it would've been a total humiliation for him.
