Talk:Alberto Contador

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Alberto Contador was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 24, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
December 14, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 30, 2011.
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Cycling (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Olympics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Alberto Contador is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Spain (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citations but no footnotes[edit]

Fix it or I'm going to remove the text again. Nosleep1234 09:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

YesY Done SeveroTC 10:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nosleep1234 11:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


Origins of his nickname, "The Accountant"? Toby Douglass 09:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I added this a while back, obviously not referencing it - my badness. I'll have a search to see where I got it from (and then reference it ;) ). SeveroTC 10:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The only ref to this on his very thorough Spanish page is that his mates called him "Pantani" when he first started cycling, as he was already an amazing climber. His surname literally translates as "accountant" - or at least, Google Translate does. Google will also bring up more than one cycling forum with some wannabe claiming to have "invented" it. Obviously, it's not his nick in Spain... nor does "contador" generally mean accountant, in common parlance; it's more normally used to refer to something like a gas meter. mikaultalk 10:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, literally, it translates as "counter" or "one who counts." Contar is the verb for "to count" and the suffix "-ador" (pintador, one who paints {painter}, bailador, one who dances {dancer}) means "one who." Though it is correct that contador means bookkeeper or accountant. Nosleep1234 18:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Pintador"? – er, you sure about that? Contador might literally be "one that counts", but in Spain it gets primarily used for meters and other non-human ones that count... an accountant/book-keeper is colloquially a gestor, more formally contable, unless in public office, where you might find a contador público </pedant> mikaultalk 01:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't found a reliable source for it, as, as you mention, it's just a translation of his name. Interestingly, I found a few sites that reference Wikipedia over it... SeveroTC 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the commentators of Sporzahave called him the accountant a few times back in the Tour de France of 2007. But they also call him El Dynamitero and El Pistolero. Perhaps El Dynamitero should be added as well to be more complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Speculation about blood clot[edit]

There appears to be some speculation about the blood clot. I found at least one reliable source containing this speculation [1]. This may or may be (I can't read [2]. If we get 3 or so, we probably should mention it after this "renewed speculation about his involvement in Operación Puerto" (not in the blood clot section). Nil Einne 09:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, mere conjecture from this "news" website... Keep it encyclopaedic, keep it WP:BLP. SeveroTC 10:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Conjecture from multiple reliable sources is implicitly allowed under BLP. It is important here we get good sources, not tabloids. If & when multiple sources are found (currently we only have have 1, perhaps 2) then I would suggest you take it to the BLP noticeboard if you disagree but I think you will find you're wrong here (I'm a very strong supporter of BLP and also check the noticeboard not infrequently). There is nothing unencyclopaedic about us reporting very common speculation as speculation. Indeed, it's more unenyclopaedic for us to fail to mention any very common speculation. Note that there is a big difference between us saying that Contador's blood clot was due to reason X and us reporting that multiple reliable sources have speculated the blood clot may be due to reason X. It would be quite wrong for us to do the former, but there is nothing wrong with us doing the later, if true Nil Einne 14:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I agree, but who has said it must be explicit. Regards, SeveroTC 14:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation about Puerto[edit]

I don't think that this statement: "he has become focus of renewed speculation about his involvement in Operación Puerto." Should be included. Two of the referenced articles are in French, so I can't read them, but the first article doesn't indicate that there is any "renewed" speculation at all. If there is "renewed speculation", then it should specifically cite the individuals or organizations involved, otherwise, I think this should be removed as per WP:BLP. Cogswobbletalk 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is that it's just speculation. It shows how much of a witch hunt this has become. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the whole point is that it's not just speculation, but a deliberate attempt by Spain to protect national heros. His name was on the list. Doping expert Werner Franke got his hands on the original protocols of the searches in the house of Fuentes (cf.,1518,497236,00.html (German)). Contador's name miraculously disappeared from the lists when spanish authorities passed them on. Fuentes was team doctor of Liberty Seguros. He was also a gynecologist. Now, as Jaksche puts it: Unless you want to do doping, there is little reason to go to a gynecologist as a male cyclist. Contador would do everyone a favor to follow Ivan Basso's example and confess or at least provide DNA for a test, if he truly has nothing to hide. The fact that he claims a DNA test would not be "fair" is ridiculous. Either its his blood or it isn't. -- 12:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not the place of Wikipedia to arrive at a synthesis: that is counted as original research. I'm leaving this Werner Franke thing for the time being, but it seems more like he's a trouble maker than someone with an opinion with significant weight. As Cogswobble implies above, English language sources are preferable so that we can all ensure that WP:BLP is being adhered to. The importance of WP:BLP cannot be overestimated. SeveroTC 12:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Now you are on the fringe of NPOV. BLP is important, but we do not "silence" people either. The FACT is that dozens of newspapers over the past week have posted again about his involvement in the operacion puerto case. The involvement is that he was on the original list given to the german police (the list that included ullrich) (reprinted by and suddeutsche zeitung last week). The fact is also that like Contador, Basso was "cleared" from the list in 2006, but in april 2007 Basso admitted that he was involved, so clearing does not mean that it could not be true regardless. The fact is that there was a dopingplan for "liberty seguros" that mentioned: "J.J. R.H. A.C.". The fact is that there is an A.C. on the list of Fuentes. Now there may not be proof, but there is definitely a LOT of speculation by media and fellow riders. We are not to say that this is true, but if so many newspapers report this, then who are we to silence it ? Wikipedia DOES report about unproven things, and several of these german and french papers are respected newssources. If someone's position is widely regarded controversial we do note this in wikipedia. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree about leaving the remarks from Franke. An article about Moshe Katsav without mentioning the accusations against him does not make sense. Nor can an article about Alberto Contador do without noting the accusations against him. That is common sense. According to the article about Werner Franke he is considered a “leading expert in performance enhancing drugs" and ZDF thought his accusations were important enough. If you have sourced statements about Franke please state them in a neutral way Scafloc 13:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
We still don't draw synthesis. If someone reports AC as Contador that can be mentioned, but if the reports leave this open for the reader to infer, it cannot. We're talking about unproven but potentially career ending accusations here - whatever is added must be thoroughly sourced. SeveroTC 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Severo, but you're really stressing my patience by now. It is not the position of Wikipedia to out-expert the experts. You seem to have a lot of energy protecting cyclists from what you call libellous accusations, but have no hesitation to slander accredited doping experts as "troublemakers". Your suggestion that he isn't someone with an opinion that carries particular weight is ridiculous. You may believe all you want, but it isn't the role of Wikipedia to promote scientific illiteracy and gullibility. -- 07:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha ha. I'm not a Contador fan, but I am a fan of sourcing and attributing statements. As Cogswobble says below, phraseology is everything. If there is a significant view to be detailed, it should be in the style of X accused Contador of Y.... Quote the experts exactly, and if they have implied something, allow them to imply it in their own words. We can't draw synthesis from people's arguments - that is policy. SeveroTC 14:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
None of which has anything to do with your slandering Franke. You happily ignore BLP when it doesn't fit into your position. Labelling scientists "troublemakers" and accredited experts people people whose voice doesn't carry particular weight has little to do with policy and everything with POV-pushing. In fact, were I you, I would have removed it posthaste as a BLP violation. -- 14:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the talk page for improving the Alberto Contador article, not about me. Thanks for your care though. SeveroTC 14:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't improve the Alberto Contador article by slandering sources and acting as if you were a better expert in the field of doping than accredited scientists. You are quite right, this isn't about you, which is why you can keep your uninformed assessment of sources to yourself. Obviously, you don't even have the decency to retract your statements. -- 14:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
My objection to the "renewed speculation" statement was that it was unsupported in the references, and that it was not specific. "Renewed speculation" implies that there is new information or a new accusation.
The sources cited for that statement simply restated the known information. If there IS new information or a new accusation (such as the Franke accusation), then it should be explicitly cited as "X accuses Contador of Y", rather than vaguely stating that there is "renewed speculation". Cogswobbletalk 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Contador has been barred from racing in Hamburg because of the alleged links to Puerto: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Av2007av (talkcontribs) 10:13, August 9, 2007.

Current team[edit]

Someone recently changed Contador's current team from Discovery to Astana. My understanding was that it is Discovery until next year, when he will move to Astana. What's the lowdown on this? BrianTung 00:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, and an interesting point about when riders contracts expire has been in the Dutch courts lately as Thorwald Veneberg has disputed not being offered a new contract by Rabobank [3]. I just don't have the energy to revert these such edits only to change them back in January. In January, I will update all teams and riders (in the ProTour ranks at least, I'll do professional continental by the end of February) and refresh all the referencing. SeveroTC 13:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong info about Contador supposedly having lost 2007 victory[edit]

At the end of the page, in Sporting positions one can read: "Winner of the Tour de France (honour removed after decision of race officials; see Cadel Evans)", what contradicts with the intro text "winner of the 2007 Tour de France with team Discovery Channel". Aiarakoa (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. User:Peter Ellis made some changes but I'm not sure if it was vandalism or a lack of information.Drunt (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I apologise. I mistook a report about the Astana Team matter, which appeared in several forms that seemed to support my mistaken supposition. - Peter Ellis - Talk 12:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There should be a 3rd photo[edit]

I mean one of Contador wearing the maglia rosa, for that of the 5th cyclist winning the 3 grand tours, and there are already images of him wearing the yellow and gold maillot. (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I added one from my own, the problem is that I don't find where to put it, so I put it on the palmarés section and put the 2004 photo from there on the "early years" section. I think it fits well... Korlzor (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, that progression of photos is pretty damn cool. Kudos to all who put it together. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 12:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


If somebody wants to start a peer review for A-class or Good Article review for this article, I would be interested in the results. The formatting of the palmares ("Major achievements") would interest me, just as the used templates in the bottom of the article (the "Sporting positions - Winner of the Tour de France" and "Tour de France Yellow jersey winners" are not both needed, I think one of them should leave, but I would like the review to determine which.) I have not contributed to this article, and not enough time, so I don't start the review-process myself. I might help with it, though.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've put it up for GA. It will be some time before a reviewer gets to it, so we can continue to improve the article in the meantime. Nosleep break my slumber 23:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GREAT on ga![edit]

I worked on this article some time ago and I like seeing it on such a good status, thanks everyone!. (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Grand Tour Results (3 victories)"[edit]

OK, so 8 reasons is maybe pushing it, but this section is

  1. Garish
  2. Redundant to the article prose
  3. Redundant to the "major wins" section of the infobox
  4. Needlessly bloating the article (WP:SIZE)

Please discuss here before adding it again. Nosleep break my slumber 15:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

# Garish
Personal opinion..? This isn't too important.
# Redundant to the article prose
# Redundant to the "major wins" section of the infobox
Not true, actually it says the complete positions on each ranking
Perhaps that's technically true, but what is the significance of Contador finishing 122nd in the points classification of the 2005 Tour, or 22nd in the mountains class of the Giro? There isn't one. It's the very definition of trivia.
  1. Needlessly bloating the article (WP:SIZE)
Completely false lol, its a very small table which affects the article in a really short way... (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
With the table, the article is 38K. Without it, it's 36K. WP:SIZE says an article should, whenever possible, be between 20K and 40K (30K and 50K, actually. So not quite as big a deal, but it still does make a difference). It makes an appreciable difference. Nosleep break my slumber 13:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like something from the tennis bio articles which, as we've stated before, look great but don't really work for cycling races. The complete positions on most of the rankings don't really matter: Contador has never attempted to win a points or mountains jersey. The section is redundant to what is already in the GA-standard article. SeveroTC 10:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I have never before seen the reasons for the removal of the table. I never even noticed that it had been there. I have been busy making similar tables for Tour de France winners. Only with the important classifications, so without white jerseys or combination classifications. This is what it would look like for Contador:
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Tour 31 DNE 1 DNE
Stages won 0 1
Mountains classification NR 2
Points classification 122 10
Stages won 0
Mountains classification 22
Points classification 8
Vuelta DNE DNE DNE 1
Stages won 2
Mountains classification 3
Points classification 2
1 Winner
2–3 Top three-finish
4–10 Top ten-finish
11– Other finish
DNE Did Not Enter
DNF-x Did Not Finish (retired on stage x)
DNS-x Did Not Start (no started on stage x)
DSQ Disqualified
N/A Race/classification not held
NR Not Ranked in this classification
Four arguments against this kind of table have been given, so let me reply.

1. Garish.

Even though you said it's not important, I still like to reply on this. The kind of tables with the colors are in use in tennis players articles, formula one racers articles and golf player articles, so the wikipedia consensus seems to be that these tables can be used.

2. Redundant to the article prose 3. Redundant to the "major wins" section of the infobox

Yes, it is. So is the palmares section (here named "Major achievements"). But I intend it as a replacement for the "Major achievements" section. Now we have the information in the infobox, in the prose, and in the major achievements. I would like to see it in the infobox, the prose and the table. So the redundancy does not change.

4. Needlessly bloating the article

Because the "Major achievements" section can be smaller with this table, it does not bloat the article that much. But the important word here is "needlessly", see the next issue:

5. The complete positions on most of the rankings don't really matter (I just continue the numbering)

Maybe. That Contador was 122th in the points classification of the 2005 Tour de France is irrelevant, but it is relevant that he was not top three. Or rather, it would have been relevant if he were top three, and this table shows that this is not the case.

I will stop adding these tables to other articles, but would you please reply on this table and my reasoning?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Similar tables are also made for tennisplayers. See for instance Roger Federer and his results in the grandslam tournaments.
Listing the resultsin the normal race in a table seems relevant but I could do without the Mountains classification and the Points classification.

Scafloc (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what to do with the Mountains and Points classification. I included them for now, but I also thought about just including a jersey if the classification was won. But then second places in the classification could not be seen, and for example for Erik Zabel, I would like the table to show that between 2002 and 2008 he was still doing well in the points classification. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If we want to change how we give major results for every cyclist, then so be it. I don't see any need to, and I think the way it's currently done works just fine. My argument basically boils down to that. As far as the Zabel example, his continued fair performances in the Tour after his period of dominance ended should be mentioned in the article prose (I really hate how we are writing articles that we apparently don't expect anyone to read) and arguably in the "Major results" or whatever section (I don't think we've conclusively decided on this). Nosleep break my slumber 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the prose. I am not suggesting to remove anything from the article prose. Of course it should be added to the prose. Maybe it's my engineering background, but I like tables and graphs to accompany the prose. Let the prose and the data work together. And the way the data is presented now, is not really working. Most articles list the victories by year now, but some articles include the tiniest races and all rankings, and I want a way to have everything work out better. The tennis project and formula one project found some solution for this problem, so I tried to copy the solution.
I think I will stop with the tables in the main space, and start with working out one example in full detail in my user space. If the consensus is that it does not work, so be it, but at least I tried. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying you're trying to eliminate prose, but this does effectively replace it (hence "we're writing articles we don't expect anyone to actually read"). If that's the audience we're trying to cater to, then this is the right thing to do. I hope it's not, though. Nosleep break my slumber 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think that we don't expect readers. A better presentation of the data will not be a negative influence on the number of readers, will it?
Well, what's the reason to have tables and such if it's not to provide quick reference, which is effectively an alternative to 35K of prose? With the table, readers don't need to actually read the article, and probably won't. If that's what we want, then that's what we want, but I don't like it. Nosleep break my slumber 15:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
If you want readers that prefer pure prose to prose accompanied with figures and tables, then you don't want me as reader. I agree with your point that there are too many cyclist biographies with only one line of prose, an infobox and results. But that is unrelated to my point of the bad presentation of those results, as far as I can see. Let's keep the discussions separated. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
OH! Are you proposing an alternative to the "Major results" section? That's totally different. It doesn't address how to list non-Grand Tours, and it's still quite bogged down in trivia, but it is separate from my other points, yes. Nosleep break my slumber 15:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice to see we can agree:). If I can find the time, I will try to make an example on my userpage that replaced the palmares section with a table. Probably there will be a lot wrong with it, but we don't have a deadline :). --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The current table is much less an issue. I still don't really see its merits, but that's absolutely personal opinion. No serious objection to it. Nosleep break my slumber 19:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I take the responsibility of being the one who introduced it it in the Armstrong, Leipheimer and Menchov articles. I was looking for comparative information about how some riders (actually, the rder I was focused on was Christian Vandevelde, whom I know has finished all three Grand Tours) had done in the Grand Tours, and it bothered me that there was such placement information for golf and tennis but not for cycling. The only real change I made was changing the championship color from green (after the green jacket given to the winner of the Masters) to the colors of the winners' jerseys and adding a separate color for non-winning podiums. Anyway, that's the reason for this table, which is why it doesn't contain all the stage win and jersey information of the draft table presented above. I never intended it as a replacement, just as a supplement. -- AyaK (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

it's a shame[edit]

it's a shame that a crack pot like greg lemond can accuse contador of doping and tell him the burden to prove his innocence is on contactor and wikipedia prints it here. in america someone is considered innocent until proven guilty. it's obviously not true on wikipedia. this incident should go in the greg lemond article and not alberto contador. there is no evidence that alberto doped yet there is overwhelming evidence that greg lemond is a dope. it is well documented now that greg's maths for which he based his character assassination are baseless. so do you guys print any rumor or inflamatory thing said by someone as long as they are "noteworthy"? so if greg lemond said "i think alberto is a dick head" would you start a new section entitled "allegations of being a dick head"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

lemond is a former cyclist and bitter man but her is NOT an exppert or even noteworthy source on the subject of (VO2)/. those who ARE experts on (VO2) have all agreed greg's calculations/method is flawed. yet you quote lemond as if he knew what he was talking about. the majority of your readers will not realize lemond is a bitter crack pot yet you use him as a source as if he knew what he was talking about. shame on you. again, this (VO2) nonsense belongs in the lemond article and not this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree. Personally, I've always thought it was strange that LeMond protests so much about others doping -- because the fastest long time trial in the history of the TdF, faster than all the known dopers, was ridden by LeMond. If we suspect them because of their performances, shouldn't we suspect him as well? But that's just a side point. the fact is, LeMond raised a very serious issue. The person he quoted for the VO2 calculations, Antoine Vayer, may not be a household name, but he is considered the leading expert on cyclist physiology. Thus, this can't be dismissed as the rantings of a crank, which is why I added it to the article in the first place. Then I and others added the counter-evidence, as it became clear that many other credible people disagreed with Vayer's calculations (and LeMond misused them to some extent). As the third rebuttal article points out, the area of focus here -- oxygen transport -- is a focus of anti-doping efforts. Why wouldn't an encyclopedia briefly discuss the circumstances under which this measure came to widespread attention? - AyaK (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

because it is so poorly discussed in the article, and most of the type is given to lemond who is NOT a V02 expert. that is the problem, you quote him as if he knows what he's talking about. if you read what the sports scientists have to say, those who really do know, it's obvious lemond is a cracked actor. no one ran a 4 minute mile for 10s of thousands of years and when they finally did it was due to training, conditioning and nutrition. and now it happens all the time and not by doping. not everyone who rides better than lemond is doping, in spite of what that cry baby says. furthermore, using lemonds ridiculous maths then schleck was doped up too. the bottom line is every REAL expert says greg is off his rocker (or just mistaken) but you don't mention that do you? not more than one sentence should go to greg's nonsense and the bulk of the section should be from legitimate people who are in fact experts. shame on wikipedia!

this is one more example of how wiki slanders people. you give a mouth piece to every crack pot and feel like its your obligation to put what someone says in an article without understanding who you're quoting or what their claim is. numerous REAL experts have weighed in and NOT one is saying what lemond claims has any merit. lastly, you cannot calculate V02 levels from someone riding up a fucking mountain. you hbave to have controls for a test to be accurate. There are NUMEROUS other factors that lemond ignored/left out of his maths.

here is another example of the shitty treatment afforded by wikipedia. you mention alberto refused to answer questions about doping, which on one hand is true, but the next day he said he's open to be tested 365 days a year and said other things that indicate he's agreeable to testing, has no problem with being tested and is available for testing 365 days a year. that casts a different light than only saying he refused to answer the question. and keep in mind he was refusing to participate in the greg lemond inspired witch hunt where you must prove your innocent because if greg says your'e guilty....yet YOU portray it like he's dodging the dope issue. you people should stop and think about what you write about other people because the section regarding the witch hunter known as greg lemond is really shitty to alberto and cycling in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep posting about this. Cycling unfortunately has never been clean of doping, going back to poor Tom Simpson and even before him. The fact is, any championship cyclist is under some suspicion, and when we see a case like Danilo di Luca's, where the positive test took months, we know that cycling still isn't clean. As this article in Sports Illustrated quotes a cycling writer as saying,"For Americans, doping is entwined with questions of character, with goodness and evil. For Europeans, doping is simply something that cyclists are known to do. C'est le métier, the French say: It's the job." That doesn't mean that Contador's guilty, and I think we've done a good job of posting evidence that disagrees with LeMond's charges while maintaining NPOV, but it doesn't belittle cycling in general to discuss these suspicions. -- AyaK (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The current section is of undue wieght, as Contador's Verbier perforamnce haven't been investigated by any authorised body, and got less coverage in the real world than the Contador/Armstrong spat, let alone whole of 2009. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If we're going by just by U.S. "real-world" coverage, everyone in cycling not named Lance Armstrong is irrelevant. But the LeMond story was all over France. And we have no idea what "any authorized body" is investigating ... except that we know that they were investigating Astana, based on the three-hour bus search at the Swiss border, which was just after Contador's climb up Verbier. -- AyaK (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

UNACCEPTABLE AND UNFAIR FOR THE REPUTATION OF A GREAT CHAMPION I find this page quite misleading as Contador is portrayed as a doping case just from the first paragraph. Indeed, it mentions the operation puerto and a ridiculous allegation from the 2009 tour de France at the very same paragraph time they introduce us who is this rider. Obviously from that first paragraph the reader's mind is distracted by these allegations. At the end we learn that both allegations are just mere speculations since are based in a "A.C." initials, which could belong to many other sporstmen and in the misinterpretations of medical issues by an american cyclist, which were properly and timely refuted by medical experts. It is quite obvious that the author of the article was aimed at leaving the doubt on the reader's mind about Contador and he succeeds. Regrettably,the author fails to mention that Contador major wins (Giro, Vuelta and 2 Tours) took place after the Puerto's allegations, which clearly indicates that Contador hasn't needed extra-help to be where he is. I am not sure but looks to me that whoever wrote this article has a clear bias against Contador. In addition the author spend describing an obscure hypothesis regarding Contador's accident and the resultant clots.

I have taken the liberty to edit this article by removing what is a false allegation (indeed is an hypothesis) that was proved wrong by experts. We all want a clean sport but giving voice to false allegations like Lemond's one just will encourage others to make false allegations in the future for this or others champions for the simple reason to see these allegations published in Wikipedia. Lemond is not an expert in physiology he was an extraordinary cyclist who from time to time seeks attention in not a very responsible way. I very much hope that the author(s) re-write the Puerto paragraphs as to indicate that Contador major achievements were after those allegations. Certainly such an extend paragraph is not warranted; a link to the operation Puerto would suffice. Contador is only starting to write his history as one of the best cyclist of all time and this article is just unfair to this extraordinary sportsman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilar001 (talkcontribs) 18:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Right...the article's original author is the one with the agenda, not you, who posted this diatribe. I find I don't care enough to proactively revert your edit, but it is accurate and verifiable that Contador has been accused of doping. It is also accurate and verifiable that he has never tested positive for anything nor faced any individual sanctions. I think that presents a balanced take on it. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I know people talk about it alot but one of the worst things about the whole subject of doping is when the poeple who train hard and committ to get to where they are start being among the accused

I mean contador is one example - hes been accused so many times

the most recent example (i think) being is win on stage 15 of the tdf 2009 - people didnt think that this win was simply because hes the worlds best climber - people started to say he was doped

im not an expert but i think that alot of the time u can tell wen sum1 is doped through their peersonality. alberto seems like someone who holds the true values of the sport very closely and wud never use illegal substances to enhance his performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmarsden2 (talkcontribs) 16:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

hij is de beste van alle fietsers i love you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Schleck and bicycle chain[edit]

I've removed inaccurate and POV and misplaced-modifier wording in the section re: the controversial Schleck chain incident. For one thing, I think even characterizing it as a "mechanical failure" is POV at this point, because during the final TDF stage, the commentators revealed that the cause of the dropped chain was Andy's improper gear-shifting (something every cyclist has experienced when the biggest and smallest gears are attempted to be used together). For another, the citation does not support that Contador "claim[ed] he had no knowledge of the situation." For another, Contador and Schleck quickly reconciled and are the best of friends; Schleck staunchly defending his friend in every interview subsequent to that stage and decrying the people that booed Contador, praising Contador for letting him win the Tourmalet stage, and always calling him "a big champion." (By the by, I would have much prefered that Schleck had won the TDF this year, but we must remain strictly NPOV and WP:BLP.) Softlavender (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jerseys in infobox[edit]

Editors might be interested in this, because it discusses wether the jerseys in the infobox should stay or go. Let's keep the discussion there. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Every professional cyclist has these icons on their wiki page if they won a stage race. I don't see why Contador should be the exception. As long as the correct colour of jersey is used for the stage race I don't see any problem with it. The page looks bland without these icons to be honest. These icons also make it easy to quickly recognise some of his big wins. It will take longer if all you see is text. Especially when that text is -probably- going to get longer and longer as his career advances.

You're right. Contador should not be the exception. No cyclist bio article should have these icons. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You're the only guy that seems to have a problem with it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the project discussion referred to above. Kevin McE (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have and guess who started that project discussion. Hey, I don't care for those small stage races, but Grand Tours should have their icons added back on in the info box and major victories. If only for aesthetic reasons. And just because he says an argument doesn't count, doesn't mean he's right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Starting a discussion does not mean other people did not contribute to it, so your response does not justify your earlier comment, nor does it negate the validity of my comment. If you do not agree with the project consensus, raise the matter there: as I said in my last editnote, project wide consensus is not established at one rider's article. Kevin McE (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. Him and a few people. Still doesn't mean everything should be deleted. What I propose is: keep the jersey icons for Grand Tours and ditch everything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean her and a few people ;) And I don't want that. Consensus formed at WT:CYC was for something else. But I'm always up for discussion. It doesn't seem that anyone else is, though, since it's been nearly a month since you posted, and no one replied. Again, No cyclist bio should have these icons. Whenever I see them, I take them out. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant him, but that's besides the matter. While I do agree that these Icons shouldn't be in the infobox, they should be included in the major achievement sections. Well, the jerseys of Grand Tours at least. Small stage races don't matter that much. While I'm talking about this section anyway what do you guys(and girls) think about removing that picture of him in "Major achievements"? There's already enough pictures of him in this article and it's stretching that section a little bit too much.

Ps: Pretty much all cyclist bio's still have these icons. Perhaps you need glasses? Or did the icons on the Cancellara page blind you? ;) (just a joke.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for assuming you were referring to me (I did start that discussion, though). I don't frequently read cyclist bios. This is the only one on my watchlist (only because I first found it in pretty good condition, made some edits to pass it through WP:GAN, and would like to keep it there). I've removed the icons from Vincenzo Nibali, Thor Hushovd, and Ivan Basso. Whenever I find those icons, I remove them, because, unless it changes, consensus is against their inclusion. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 23:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why TWO ENTRIES of DOPING ALLEGATIONS???? Is it not one enough? Actually his positive is under investigation.[edit]

Hello I am Cruzado123,

I have tried several times to change the intro about doping allegations and I have been reverted. I just can not understand why Contador, whose positive is still under consideration, has to had TWO ENTRIES OF DOPING allegations (one in the intro and one in 2010 Tour the France). Why one is not enough? For example, Lance Armstrong who has a long list of doping allegations have only one entry. I really think these exaltations are made by some Anglo-Saxon writers (including the one of wikipedia) green of envy about the Spanish Sport accomplishments. If Contador is or is not a cheater will be ruled by the UCI. And should not be ruled by Anglo-Saxon-wikipedia-writers green of envy or by the same yellowish media.

Please, let one doping allegation in the biography of a man that it was not judged yet and not two.

And next time, learn to play soccer or tennis better... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruzado123 (talkcontribs) 04:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon? You mean the term usually used to describe the invading Germanic tribes in the south and east of Great Britain from the early 5th century AD? Contador's career is given a fair and reliably-sourced overview in this article. It's true that his current doping case has not reached its resolution. It's also true that this isn't the only one he's ever had. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the function of a lead – see WP:Lead section. To oversimplify it a bit, a lead section should summarize the contents of the article. Given that Contador has been involved in at least three doping cases (one of which he was cleared from, one of which never amounted to much of anything, and one of which is still pending), it merits mentioning in the lead. And I have no interest in soccer or tennis ;p Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 04:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Anglo-Saxon media... The ones that invented the yellow press. The ones that re-write the history in their own stile. The ones, that said: The Spanish conquest of America was full of blood, when none Native American is left in USA. The ones that said Spanish Inquisition was ruthless when the german/british inquisitors burned ten times more people. The ones that said, we won in Trasfalgar and we crushed the Invencible Armada and banned to the historians to talk about the Blas de Lezo, defence of Cartagena... Yep, I am talking about these "Anglo-Saxon" media, the ones that can not see how the Spaniards lead in cyclist, tennis, soccer, basket, f1, etc, etc.

By the way Green-eyed girl, is it truth that you are a woman that previously was a men, and now is a lesbian?. And moreover who speaks 5 languages like? Who is going to believe that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not that my personal life is at issue, but everything on my user page is true. de-1 and it-1 hardly mean "I speak" those languages, matter of fact they mean I have very little proficiency with them. It's not unusual to have low-to-moderate proficiency in multiple languages when you're a linguistics student. The only ones I speak fluently are English and Spanish.Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 01:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
If, before you are banned from sockpuppetry as will surely happen, you can point out one statement in the article as it currently stands that is not verifiably true, I will happily remove it. Ad hominiem argument, assumptions of dishonesty on the part of long term contributors, and accusations of acting out of national interest will not gain you any support as a contributor. Kevin McE (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It's clear now that User:Cruzado123 and User: are the same person. I'd like to be able to work with this person, since he seems very passionate about this, but the passion seems more on the side of whitewashing Contador's hardly blemish-less record.Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 01:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


Cyclingnews attributes this claim to The New York Times. I haven't yet found the NYT article in question (but I haven't really looked that hard). Is this RS enough? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 01:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am Cruzado123 again. I have been banned so I could not answer before. Thanks Green-eyed girl again to bring the topic again: The non-bias, non-envy, non-yellow but fabulous New York Times brought this news.

Q: Is the Plasticiers detection an official method? A: No. It is under research. It is not clear that it can detected what is claimed.

Q: Is it approved by the UCI? A: No. So, it is not doping, even if Contador has 200 times more.

Q: Have been others cyclist tested by Plasticiers? A: This information has not been released, but it could be interesting to know, because it could show if it shows false positives or not.

Q: If Contador auto-transfused as Plasticiers claim to attest, where is the peak of red cells blood account? A: There is not peak of blood cells.

Q: Was found Plasticiers and Clenbuterol in the same sample? A: No. Plasticiers was found a day before than clenbuterol.

Q: If Contador was auto-transfused why his samples did not show Clenbuterol + Plasticiers at the same day? A: Uhhmmmm.... I do not know but he his a cheater 100% sure!! And also Iniesta, Pau Gasol, Nadal, Fernando Alonso, Lorenzo and all the Spaniards... They used olive oil plasticized with TAPAS & TACOS, someone of the NYT told me.

Q: Are NYT try to dirt Contador? A: No, wikipedia claims that NYT is a reliable source.

Q: Are Cruzado123 going to be banned? A: Probably, he does not follow our dictations...

You need to take it down a notch, dude. I did not read the Cyclingnews article closely enough at first – it clearly states Contador has denied using any doping product or method. His press spokesman, Jacinto Vidarte, said that the Spaniard “has done nothing illegal” and added that “there has been no official confirmation at all” about the plasticisers. which means we should err on the side of excluding it from the article. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The plasticisers claim was in the article for less than an hour (having been placed by an editor who is not, I believe, by any means Anglo-Saxon), and was removed several hours before Cruzado's rant here. The NYT article is here: phrases in it such as "it appears that", "according to a person with knowledge of the test results", "the person, who wanted to remain anonymous" and "the test to detect plasticizers ... is not yet validated for use." While the NYT is probably something that can be considered a reliable source, it should still be read carefully before being cited; the purpose of a newspaper is different from that of an encyclopaedia, and so while breaking news of suspicions is withing the NYTs mission, it does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kevin... Thanks God! I have heard something that make sense after all "the purpose of a newspaper is different from that of an encyclopaedia, and so while breaking news of suspicions is withing the NYTs mission, it does not belong in an encyclopaedia". That is what I thought that wikipedia should be, but Kevin, let me tell you that the current article is insinuating twice (in the lead and in the body), that Mr Contador is a cheater. Wikipedia is then breaking news, because Contador is suspended but their positive is still under investigation. So, I tried to quit the insinuation in the lead, because I thought that it is too much for an innocent man yet. And you guys, did not let me do it and you guy banned me. This is my point: If UCI finally decided that COntador is innocent Wikipedia is contributing to dirt the carrier of an athlete. I sincerely don't like that as frequent user of English wikipedia. Actually I think that wikipedia is now a breaking news journal as you insinuated before. In my eyes, If UCI rule against COntador the information should be in the lead. If not the information should be in the body. Meanwhile the information should be removed at least from the lead as I tried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruzado123 (talkcontribs) 03:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you must understand that your short ban was for repeatedly making the same edit without discussion after it was clear that the edit was contested: this is edit-warring. You were not banned simply because you removed something that you did not agree with.
I agree that some editors are overkeen to publish breaking news on Wikipedia, but I do not agree that the Contador page, in ots present condition, suffers from that.
As has already been explained to you, the apparent repetition of the claim is not for exagerration or emphasis, but is a result of the nature of the introduction as a summary of the article that follows. This is a matter of valid discussion: are the allegations sufficiently important to perception of AC's career to justify inclusion in the lead? Sadly, I would say that yes they are, but this is something over which we should invite readers'/editors' opinions and reasons. But accusations of national bias and insinuations about the private life of editors play no part in such discussion.
In relation to the Clenbuterol, the UCI has not yet made any final decision, but they have taken an interim step, that of suspending him pending further investigation. The article represents that accurately. There has ben no oficial mention of plasticisers, therefore they are absent from the article. In time, the UCI will rule on the matters, and the article will, I am confident, be able to report the decision in a balanced, factual way.
But covering up what is in the public forum and is officially acknowledged is not balanced, and is not meeting the purpose of an encyclopaedia to inform and clarify. Kevin McE (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Spot on. If this had been the first doping allegation/incident/case/whatever of Contador's career, its leadworthiness would have been debatable. But it's not the first, or the second, and the article fairly reflects what can be verified in reliable sources. Frankly, I think it's tilted the tiniest bit in Contador's favor if anything. Everything under the "2010 Tour de France" subheading makes the case sound wishy-washy, small amount, bad beef, no performance boost, and so on. If we were truly out to malign Contador, it would be a lot more salacious.
And Cruzado123, if you think the (indeed) many doping allegations brought against Armstrong merit mentioning in the lead of his article, start a discussion on Talk:Lance Armstrong or the cycling project's talk page to see if there is consensus for them. For unrelated reasons, Armstrong's is not an article I care to maintain, so I'm indifferent as far as that goes. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 23:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

Hello I am Cruzado123 again. I am not going to change any dot of the article, but I have to say that I am really disappointment about English Wikipedia version. I was not trying to hide any information. I only say that it is not fair to put the doping information in the lead of a cyclist that is not guilt yet of doping. When the final decision shows up, I think that you can do it, but not in the meantime. You have a very simple way to see the live, the news are not white or yellow because they are published in a newspaper or in other. NYT can publish crap also, the same of El País, or whatever newspaper. I have not seen it in lead of Armstrong although he has more doping allegations. So, your behavior are completely bias. I am sorry, but is is truth. Anyways, As I have heard: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. I decide to leave it. By the way, I have read the Contador article in Spanish, and it is real good. I have to say that I did not contribute to it, but it is really AWESOME. I encourage you to look at to the layout of it and to learn what is fair and what is not. The Green eyes lady claims to know Spanish perfectly, isn't?. Look at that doping allegations shows up, but says that is under investigation and that it is not a fact. AS FAR I KNOW, IT IS WHAT IT IS... If Contador doping allegations are official, the banner will change. Guys, I leave here... Have fun!

Despite your recommendation that we follow the Spanish article's example, and therefore your apparent preference that we should include the evidence that plasticisers are present, for the reasons mentioned above I am happy that we have not. Kevin McE (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The lead in the Spanish article is too short. It does not fully address all major aspects of Contador's career. It's probably part of the reason why it has not been listed as an artículo bueno while our article is a WP:GA. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 00:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sources continue to report the plasticizers, but still no official confirmation of the find: I dislike including what is anonymous unconfirmed gossip in Wikipedia, but:
a) the number of editors wanting to post it now outnumbers those opposing it in this discussion,
b) perception in the cycling press is that it has gone beyond unconfirmed rumour, and has converted into something that is generally believed, but uncommented on by the relevant authority.
The recent addition acknowledges that it is no more than reports and that there is dispute: I withdraw my stance against inclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello! The part about plasticizers says that Contador's urine samples actually "contained plastic residue", while it is not an officially confirmed fact. If you talk about allegations, than the phrase should go something like "It was alleged that..". The phrase as it is now is misleading. The NYT article doesn't state its sources and there was no follow-up to the story, which somehow lowers its significance. I am of an opinion that you can't add data to an encyclopaedia based on a sole article of such a disputed quality. I am not in any way a fan of this particular athlete, but I have an impression that it is quite biased in its portrayal of doping allegations rather than sporting achievements. Sonicdes (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair point: have replaced contained with was reported to contain Kevin McE (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Needs 180 times more: claim and counterclaim[edit]

It is as true to say that the sample that indicated 50 picograms per millilitre may have been higher than typical in AC's bloodstream as lower, and given the rounding necessary by the very small quantities involved, any claim such as 180 times must be assumed to have a similarly large error margin. The qualification that Fairerversion wants to post seems to be argumentative rather than encyclopaedic: the "citation" that he posts contains no mention of plasticisers, and no refutation of the 180 times claim. As such, I don't think the sentence can stand in the encyclopaedia. As to the statement that this seeks to counter, the encyclopaedia makes no comment on the credibility of the 180 times claim, it simply says that it is the contention of Contador's adviser: that does seem sufficient to stand. Any argument to be made for the removal of that claim, or a well sourced rebuttal of it, would of course be appreciated. Kevin McE (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

5 August 2012[edit]

Why is he banned until that particular date? I assume that he had a two year ban, but how did they come to the date of 5 August. I can't find that date in the article as in a day that, say, the investigation started or anything like that. Plus, since he was allowed to continue riding even after the investigation had begun, so how exactly how/why is he "banned" for just seven more months? hbdragon88 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

He is suspended from 25 january 2011 on (so his results after that date are removed), and the time he was temporarily suspended (5 months 19 days) was subtracted from the 2 years. See the press release or the full report. It would be nice to use these as sources in the article, but I'm out of time for today. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
And here is the explanation of the calculation from an independent source. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
And the reason 25 Jan is relevant is that that was the date, in 2011, of the initial ruling from the Spanish Federation. Prior to that he served a provisional suspension from the date of accepting the notification of an adverse finding (26th August 2010) until the lifting of that suspension on 14 February 2011, a period of 5 months and 19 days. No-one actually knew about the first 5 weeks of that provisional suspension: it wasn't made public until the end of September. How the period from 25 Jan to 14 Feb is considered to be deductible from a period beginning the 25 Jan only the CAS can explain... By all means count the period from the beginning of the provisional ban, it would be unjust not to, but how is a ban from 26 Aug 2010 to 5 Aug 2012 a 2 year ban??? Kevin McE (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Pure speculation, but a proper two year suspension would prevent him from starting in the 2012 Vuelta a España, and completely ruin his season, so they did some creative bookkeeping... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

08:34, 24 July 2012[edit]

Surely, stripping of Tour the France title and ban for 2 years for doping allegations was by far more important case for Alberto Contador, rather than Operation Puerto. Next, he WAS considered one of the best climbers or whatsoever, because when he have caught with doping, that means he was good with dope and not by himself. So is simply too ridiculous to maintain this stance nowadays, like nothing happened. So I will revert change, cos article is really biased towards Contador. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Submixster (talkcontribs) 11:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to state that Beefgate is more prominent than Operation Puerto, and the text did not relate importance specifically to Contador. Rather than merely reverting, you should have sought a phrasing that allows for that distinction. You might want to look at WP:BRD: your initial edits were made with no explanation in an editnote, so don't be surprised if people do not guess your reasoning.
Many would still assume him to be among the top climbers: many commentators questioned, for example, whether Sky would have dominated climbs in the Tour if he were racing, and expect him to dominate mountain stages in the Vuelta. To say that he used to be considered the best climber is to suggest that nobody is now of that opinion, which is untenable, and definitely unverifiable. You have no grounds to make assumptions about the standard of his racing without doping: be aware of WP:BLP and what you might be inferring about all his pre-July 2010 results. You have also split the discussion of the 2010 case in the lead paragraph.
Compromise edits posted. Kevin McE (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, you are fan of Alberto, isnt it ? Any opinion is untenable, and definitely unverifiable, for that matter. And besides, there is some grounds about Contador riding with and without doping - his results and performance (if we presume, that after suspension he ride without doping). And there is a question about neutrality of this article, as it seems gloryfying Contador mostly. In my opinion, no matter how good he WAS, he was doped and for that matter he isnt any much better than Johann Mühlegg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Submixster (talkcontribs) 02:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm no particular fan of Contador. That people have expressed an opinion is verifiable, and verified. Kevin McE (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote that lead, a bit before the clen case even began. I don't edit a whole lot anymore, but I am continually surprised that it was not revised for just this reason. I agree with Submixster that that case is more prominent than Puerto, with regards to Contador (the rest, though, is just bitching). Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 09:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, at the time the point was to declare Puerto more prominent than the Werner Franke allegations or the press conference about the Verbier climb in 2009. Should stand to reason. Being stripped of two Grand Tours would seem to take precedence over losing the opportunity to be a bottle carrier. Puerto is still the bigger case generally speaking (because of its sheer size, if nothing else), but this article does not speak generally. It is about Contador. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 17:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alberto Contador. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Alberto Contador. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)