One of the Tour de France`s biggest names has been confirmed as having failed a drug test during this year`s tour. I have to say . . even this one shocked me
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11441045

Not all that surprising to me. Contador was named in the Operation Puerto investigation during the first few weeks (I believe one of the codenames found in the documents or blood bags was 'AC'), but his name did then get taken off the list quite soon (as was true for many other riders). Since then, I've always had my doubts, especially since Spanish riders in general are not known as being the cleanest out there (this was true even before Puerto came along).

It's also interesting to note that this is the first year since then that Contador has not had Johan Bruyneel as his head coach, and it's now that he is caught (again) - "Things that make you go Hmmmmm..."

Unfortunately nowadays there is no such thing as "clear" athlete. Everybody takes some sort of banned supplements; just ones are more careful with the dosage or have the latest stuff which cannot be detected yet and others not being so lucky. Very little is left for the evolution of the human body...

I wonder how Riis is going to handle this one?

I always wondered why they never pursued Contador (or anyone else on the Puerto list) in the same manner in which they pursued Valverde. Contador testing positive doesn't surprise me a bit.

Wow.......everybody?? How do you know this? Facts please

I hope this will be the chance for Michael Rasmussen

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-...-investigation

We, as the public, tend to believe the worst. Hopefully, these are
only a few exceptions, but I doubt it.

Yes.....he deserves it BIG time IMHO.

As dirty as AC is I actually reckon he'll get off on this one. He tested positive for an asthma drug that everyone knows is stupidly easy to detect. It's not widely used by athletes due to the small quantities that can be very easily detected.

It can be so easily detected that if one was to use s food supplement that had been prepared in a machine that had previously prepared something which had Clanbuterol in it one would fail a test for using a "clean" supplement just because it had been prepared in the same area as a "dirty" supplement!

Contador has been linked with Puerto and many other suspicions have been raised about him too. I'd be surprised if this test will bring him down. Very strange if it does though, he gets his just deserts for something he more then likely didn't intentionally do!

I am a keen cyclist and cycling fan and for a long time thought that doping was just limited to a few "bad eggs". It was not until a couple of years ago I got chatting to a French cyclist who used to compete on the amateur scene in France that I realised how big a problem is. As a teenager and amateur he was given amphetamines and "supplements" by his club to help with his racing performance. This was considered normal practice for a cyclist because it is a “hard” sport. If this is what happened at an amateur level in French cycling I can only conclude it is happening (or happened) in the pro ranks.

I believe things are better now and that the new generation of riders are cleaner however it will be a number of years before the majority are clean ……

This may solve a long standing argument with my husband. He says that Lance Armstrong is not guilty of doping. I have always maintained that he is guilty; I don't like Armstrong or his Livestrong site

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-s...e-ex-mechanic/

Doping accusation killed my hero Marco Pantani...then we found out everybody used some kind of "help". Personally I think that cycling is such a hard sport that some kind of soft doping should be allowed. In football where it's not necessary at all instead it should be persecuted but nobody cares much 'cos there's too much money involved. Sad sad sad

Jan Ulrich always maintained that he did not get any unfair advantage by using the various substances and techniques.
He didn't say outright that everybody was using (the omerta amongst the players kind-of forbids that) - but it was only a thin line from there.

Back then, we were made to believe that the guys were riding only on pasta and energy-bars.

What happened to Pantani was a great shame but having read his book it is clear he had massive insecurities throughout his life. Being accused / exposed (depends on what you believe during his downfall!) for doping did not kill him but burst the bubble he was living in and he could not cope with life without cycling and the success he had previously had. It is a shame his mental health problems led to his death but this does not mean he should have been protected and allowed to dope …..

I cannot agree with your comment about allowing “soft doping” !!! The cheaters will still cheat and take the harder stuff and everyone will still question who is the “hard” doper and who is keeping within the rules. If the sport is too hard then the UCI just need to reduce the length of the races by 5% …. Still the same spectacle for the fans ….. but then cheaters will still cheat ….