Alberto Contador handed two-year ban for doping offence!!!!!!!!!!!

I denied it was a question of belief, but a question of knowledge. I don't say POPPYCOCK, but POPPY SEEDS. We have scientific knowledge that drugs have measurably and statistically significant performance enhancing benefits. We also have proven experiences which athletes are highly confident have shown a measurable performance enhancing benefit, but may be too small a benefit for scientists, and fall short of a scientist having 95% confidence of a statistically significant demonstrated benefit caused by the administration of the drug.You bring up points which are not contradictions.Drugs can have harmful and even fatal side-effects, and still possess a primary effect. Drugs can improve your mile time, or your Tour de France performance, and at the same time, maintain the same risk or even increase the risk of death.If you thought it through, you would realize that it is logical fallacy to take one single anecdotal experience, based on a harmful side-effect or adverse experience, and draw a generalized conclusion about an advertised primary effect of any and every drug.I don't currently live in America, and I'm not subjected to all the drug commercials that bombard Americans on a daily basis. I'm sure there are a lot of drugs and supplements on the market that may fail to bring any benefits, and even worse, may contain harmful and dangerous side-effects. But these cannot be used as examples to contradict that other drugs still have performance enhancing benefits.In the "Lore of Running", Timothy Noakes has a whole chapter dedicated to explaining "Ergogenic Aids", and discusses the scientific evidence regarding different aids, in order to form "a dispassionate judgement of their efficacy".The effect of anabolic steroids in power sports cannot be denied. The effects of durgs (and techniques) that increase oxygen delivery have also been scientifically shown. Even caffeine has a mild, but measurable performance enhancing effect.

J.R. wrote:

Yes, YOU are a drug believer! You deny it at first, then you promote that drugs can make you omnipotent and invincible! POPPYCOCK! It's all a bunch of nonsense, and if you thought it through, you would see this.

Drugs are promoted. Harmful effects are covered up. Brutal deaths are obscured and denied. Those are the people who brainwash you with false information. But you believe them? Think again.

You've been watching too many commercials, which is where you got your "scientific" information.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm sure there are a lot of drugs and supplements on the market that may fail to bring any benefits, and even worse, may contain harmful and dangerous side-effects. But these cannot be used as examples to contradict that other drugs still have performance enhancing benefits.

I see, so you have "selective belief."

You choose which lies to believe. How convenient.

Looks like you don't see. You don't see a great deal.

Regardless of my beliefs, you fail to provide any facts, or apply any sound logical method to support your conspiracy theory that no drugs work.

Barakus Obama wrote:

At least they also banned Lance Armstrong.

Oh...wait!

Very original.

European cyclist wrote:

Tinfoil wrote:

Congratulations to Andy Schleck the new official Tour de France champion from 2010

Congratulations to Andy Schleck, that was equally as jacked as Contador, and the 20 next placed tour riders.

Contador was the best of the dopers.

The current antidoping system simply makes things even more

unfair. Some are cought and become jerks and bad guys amongst

the uninformed public. Other, that also use the full package,

become heroes.

Thats what sport has become.

Thats not quite right, different atletes react differently on epo and cera etc. So its not necessary the best one who wins, but the guy who responds best to whatever he is taking.

rekrunner wrote:

The effect of anabolic steroids in power sports cannot be denied. The effects of durgs (and techniques) that increase oxygen delivery have also been scientifically shown. Even caffeine has a mild, but measurable performance enhancing effect.

[/quote]

What the heck are you talking about? Of course the effect of drugs can't be denied, nobody are doing that. What cannot be denied is the negative side effects of drugs.

rekrunner wrote:

I think it is interesting to look at how Contador was treated versus how Landis was treated.

Landis was stripped of the title within days, lacking any kind of "political" support to defend him.

Contador was informed quietly about the finding, enjoyed a two month period (to plan a strategy) before before the public actually found out, and even his own cycling federation sought Contador's advice about a potential partial ban, before retracting it when Contador simply hinted he wouldn't give his permission.

I think when we compare the treatment of Landis to Contador (or Landis to Lance), there is certainly a double standard (or more), depending on how well you are politically connected to all the different organizations.

But it's also to do with how various national organisations deal with things - nobody really doubted that the court of arbitration would eventually find against him - the problem was that the Spanish authorities didn't in the first place.

Barakus Obama wrote:

At least they also banned Lance Armstrong.

Oh...wait!

Lance did not commit any crimes for all you wish.

Shame on you for trying to bring down an innocent man.

Right. The guy who nearly died of cancer came back and dominated the entire world elite including proven dopers year after year in the biggest race of the sport, then stayed invisible the rest of the season. And he did it all CLEANLY, of course. And Jesus was born by a virgin and rose from the dead.

GO TEXAS!

J.R. often denies that any drug can have any performance enhancing effect. The whole drug market is a money making scam. It seems to be based on one single personal experience, where synthetic EPO failed to improve his father's health.

conficious wrote:

What the heck are you talking about? Of course the effect of drugs can't be denied, nobody are doing that. What cannot be denied is the negative side effects of drugs.

leonGetz wrote:

Armstrong may be controversial, but he has never failed outright and double, as the other two have. Landis was very clear, as was Contador. Cycling should just allow doping and they should standardize the bike, and see what these jerks can do with the same equipment as we know they will never be clean.

Bhoy what a bummer, nowadays we see a high level sport, marathon, triathlon, cycling, whatever is on and who knows if any WR set is legit.!! :(

Some nerd wrote:

But he will be back racing in August of this year? What a joke.

Yep. He will be back JUST IN TIME for the VUELTA. What a coincidence.

rekrunner wrote:

J.R. often denies that any drug can have any performance enhancing effect. The whole drug market is a money making scam. It seems to be based on one single personal experience, where synthetic EPO failed to improve his father's health.

Yes, that's what the mainstream drug culture is, a deceitful money making scam that causes misery and early death to people all over the country and around the world.

This observation is not from just a single personal experience. You can look and see what is happening everywhere. Look around you, instead of blindly absorbing advertisements and studies.

I don't think you can do cycling without drugs. In cycling you work a very specific group of muscles over and over. If you have cramps, you are done. I am against drug use in sports, but in cycling they are all in some type of drug. People that believe in cycling being a clean sport, is living in the dream land.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm not a drug believer. It's not a question of belief. The effects of many drugs have been well studied, with measurable results.

Clenbuterol builds muscles, and reduces fat. Both effects are beneficial to cycling performance.

J.R. wrote:

Isn't Contador one of those who kept posting here about how good drugs are and how much they help performance.

Well if he hadn't used any, then he'd be keeping the 3 million.

DON'T BE A DRUG BELIEVER.

I don't understand why anyone even cares about cycling, clean or not.

Not to say I dislike cycling, I just don't understand why anyone likes it.

next all that wada have to do is catch all the dirty­ 100m sprinters

and especially the jamaican ones , that­ all on new designer peds like sarms.

but that will­ never happen as then 100m go back to where

rarely­ braking 10 seconds and be no progression in the w.r ­ times

and interest will totally drop . iaaf will never­ let this happen

it is all so corrupt and that includes­ wada

or what about the new peds in long distance­ running that gets

more oxygen to muscles

that select­ few athletes like farah and galen rupp on aswell

as­ afew of the percieved uber clean kenyans

like a­ certain 800m w.r holder

One thing that always bothered me about this is why would a cyclist intentionally dope with clenbuterol when everyone knows EPO/steroids/testosterone are the stuff that really helps performance. Has the last 20 years been an epidemic of clenbuterol monster performances?? On top of which, apparently you can't have any clenbuterol in your system even 0.00xx amounts in your blood and your busted, but if you micro dose with EPO you can control your blood values to below the trigger limit for the drug test. So essentially you'd be doing a drug that helps performance a whole lot less than EPO and is much easier to detect with current testing. Am I missing something here, is clenbuterol some sort of masking drug for EPO/roids/testosterone? Why would anyone dope with clenbuterol if you are going to dope instead of EPO?

> why would a cyclist intentionally dope with clenbuterol

I believe that the most popular theory, is that he might have used clenbuterol in the off season and then stored blood in bags, but the clenbuterol hadn't fully cleared his system, or perhaps he thought it would be below detectable levels. Then in TDF he is blood doping and there is a tiny trace of clenbuterol in the blood and according to some reports plasticisers also found in his blood sample.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/plasticisers-in-contadors-urine-could-indicate-blood-transfusion

Clenbuterol is not a strong performance enhancing drug. It helps mainly for fat loss.

In doping you use always a cocktail of drugs, some are more important than others.

The most important ones are impossible to detect, or have very short half lifes (EPO, HGH, Alcar, T3, Testosterone, Insulin, Blood bags).

I do not believe that Alberto intentionally used Clen, but he might have did a mistake.

1. He accidently used it, (rests from a needle or a vial).

2. He used it for fat loss in the off season, and tapped blood which he reinfused.

(i find this very unlikely as he know very well clen can be tested for, remember he is also out of competition tested).

3. He got it from cow meat.

For sure he is doped (on other substances) like every other top cyclist. But this case like many others shows how stupid the antidoping business has become. You get cought for idiotic substances, just so WADA can make an example for the media. Next year they can claim again that the tour is cleaner than ever......

The tour is of course still full of dopers. The good thing is that you at least have to be relatively smart and disciplined to avoid testing positive.