Alberto Contador’s return to competitive cycling following a drug ban will divide opinions. There will be those for whom he will forever be a doper, and a man who has brought the sport of cycling nothing but further disgrace.
For them, Contador will always be a reminder of the corruption of cycling, no matter what he does now.
There will be those who loved him for his audacious talent, for whom the manner of his disgrace doesn’t convince of his guilt, and who will be willing to give him a second chance. The amount of clenbuterol in his system was miniscule, after all.
There will also be those who don’t care about doping, as long as the racing is exciting.
Contador will be a divisive figure for the rest of his career, which is likely to extend for a good few more years.
He’ll be on a hiding to nothing: if he returns quickly to his most exhilarating form, some will assume that he’s still doping.
If he struggles to hit those heights, it will be assumed that his talent alone was insufficient and his whole career to date was based on lies.
I don’t know what to think.
My views on other riders who have returned from doping are mixed, but if I’m honest I struggle to rationalise why I give some riders the benefit of doubt while others are branded in my mind as terminal scoundrels.
I was angry when Vinokourov won the Olympic road race. It was a visceral reaction. Many observers admired his tactical brilliance, to win a race despite the physical advantages of some of his younger rivals.
While respecting his strength and smarts, I couldn’t bring myself to enjoy his victory. To me, it felt like an abuse of the Olympic ideal, and four years of an (apparently) unrepentant cheat as Olympic champion to rub our noses in it.
Yet I feel much more positive (pardon the pun) about riders like Basso or Valverde being back in the peloton. This is entirely irrational.
Both are guilty of the same thing as Vinokourov, and like him have served bans and returned to racing showing only flashes of their former brilliance.
Contador has been utterly unrepentant since he was found guilty. He has denied everything.
For other riders, this has been enough to guarantee pariah status.
But Contador has also been the most exciting grand tour rider of his generation. After an industrial Tour de France stamped into submission by the Team Sky machine, many fans will be glad to have a wild card like Contador back in the picture.
Sins will be forgiven for the sake of the spectacle.
But some will think if it was all a fraud before, perhaps it still is.
ShirleyV
Guest
I must agree with Tim. Schleck made a mistake at a critical moment and threw his chain. In fact, previous to this last mistake he had problems with shifting. Contador, in my opinion, is the best rider of his era. I wish him a long and successful career.
sittingbison
Guest
The truly galling issue about the whole ClenGate affair is the sheer hypocricy and corruption of UCI. First they covered up the positive, initially they allowed the Spanish to not sanction him until pressured into taking them to CAS by WADA. Then CAS did not allow the entire blood transfusion/plasticizer element to the prosecution, and finally comes out with the ridiculous "contaminated supplement" explanation when the tainted steak defense was investigated back to the actual cow and found to be bull. An explanation that even Contadors paid liars, Spanish press, cycling authorities or even the President never bothered putting up as it was so patently ridiculous. Finally they managed to backdate his sanction so he missed half a season of actual competitive riding instead of two years. Thats what galls about Contador, not the pictogram of clen. But yes, I'm glad to see him back. Will be interesting to see if Vroome is let off the leash and kills him (the best rider of his generation and multiple GT winner) in the mountains or ITT.
liquorbox_
Roar Rookie
i thought it was a positive but he is arguing over how it got in his system. That is a bid difference to a false drug test
Bobo
Guest
What, like Sam Riley was? Like Stepho was? Don't be silly. Go back and look at what Cycling Oz did for Stephens after Festina. We look after our own.
Nate
Guest
Alberto is a legend, if not for this false drug test he would have won 4 Tdf I'm sure. He never did anything extradonary like the likes of amrmstrong, and to be fair in that same Tdf he crashed and Andy ordered cancellara to the front to push the pace, he lost quite a bit of time then.
Colin N
Guest
Millar's a 'hero' because he showed remorse, admitted to taking drugs and has campaigned for a clean cycling since his indiscretion, the others, to my knowledge anyway, haven't. Those two you've mentioned above are examples of that, of cyclists who almost can't understand why people are criticising them. Perhaps it's a cultural thing, I don't know, but the Spanish were very unhappy that Contador was banned. If he had been British or Australian, he would have been slated in the press.
Justin Curran
Roar Rookie
Wow, is that so? I have always been under the imression it was a complete fluke it fell off. I'm not sure if that knowledge really changes my opinion of Contador. I shall have to stew on that for a while...
Tim Renowden
Expert
He was changing from one chainring to another under hard acceleration, which has a tendency to throw the chain. It's pretty common and most experienced riders know that you shouldn't shift chainrings while you're hammering it, instead you soft pedal for a couple of turns while you shift.
Justin Curran
Roar Rookie
Excuse my ignorance, but how is having your chain fall off rider error?
Bobo
Guest
I think we forget how conditioned we are by the media in forming our interpretations. The Chaingate incident was a classic. Any racer who has dropped a chain at any grade knows that it's your own damn fault, and to simply deal with it if you are dropped. Paul and Phil took an anti-Contador stance however, due to Contador having been cast as the Bad Guy the previous year (when Armstrong made his comeback and wanted to mutiny against Contador as team leader). Better to cheer for the English-speaking white guy than the bloke with the brown skin. The same is true for dopers. Millar is hailed as a hero, whereas Vino and Valverde are pilloried. The English-speakers are treated well, and the others are the Dirty Evil Dopers. I have never heard Paul and Phil talk about Levi Leipheimer's positive test, or Matt White's doping suspension, or the Doping Suspicion Index scores for the Anglophile contingent (including Wiggins). Instead we are treated to hearing about the non-English speakers as the doping scum, and the Anglo guys as the clean team. It's faintly ridiculous, and appears to be a little bit racialist.
Tim Renowden
Expert
To be fair, Vino was pretty exciting in his prime. Of course, his insane attacks often looked too good to be true, and it turned out to be so.
gusey
Guest
yes, I'm really struggling with my double standards towards Vino and Alberto... I don't love Alberto, not by any stretch, but I am glad he's back and I did love watching him ride last night. I genuinely don't know why I find either to be more acceptable.. Neither has an ounce of charisma when viewed through an english speaking tv. Alberto is maybe more fun on the bike but Vino's Olympic win was awesome so they cancel each other out there too. I've even wondered if it was the tiny tiny trace of Clem that makes me sympathetic to Alberto but that cant be it because I'm not actually sympathetic and i'm pretty sure it was the thin end of the wedge. maybe its a Collingwood factor? its a better comp when they're competitive (or in it in Alberto's case) but Christ knows I don't want them to win!
liquorbox_
Roar Rookie
after watching this mornings stage, and then thinking back to the dour TDF, I can say I heartily welcome back Alberto to the pro racing circuit. It was an exciting race!
Tim Renowden
Expert
I don't think "chaingate" was dodgy - it was rider error, Schleck made a mistake. If Schleck had overcooked a descent and nearly crashed, and Contador had gapped him, you wouldn't blame Contador.
Tim Renowden
Expert
Excellent examples. We all have our own favourites and villains. I'm just getting a bit sick of having to juggle them between categories.
Moses
Roar Rookie
Yes, people’s views on different dopers tend to be completely inconsistent; I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there. I think that the public respond to Valverde, Basso, etc, better than Vinokourov because Vino is an uncharismatic rider from Kazakhstan. Conversely, in Australia, there’s very little appetite for scrutiny of Neil Stephens, a lovable larrikin who’s now a DS for GreenEDGE but was very much caught up in the Festina affair. Similarly, Lance Armstrong is seen as a much bigger pariah than Ullrich, Pantani and Riis, even though the evidence that he doped is at this stage much scanter than the evidence for those other three TDF winners of his era. I think it’s because he is an American who the non-American public never really warmed to and were ready to turn against. On the other hand, Eddie Merckz had multiple positive tests during his career but is still a hero. I liked Floyd Landis’ comment after Vinokourov’s gold medal: "If Vino says 'it's a victory for clean cycling" he'd be my hero. Alternatively if he said 'f*** every single mother******* one of you,' that would work too."
Justin Curran
Roar Rookie
I could forgive him for the 'dodgy steak', but the 'chaingate' incident will always stay with me, and will always tarnish my views of him. Ironically however, I am glad to see him back racing, because he certainly spices things up a bit. I just won't be really happy if he wins.