If he had answered the questions would it have made any difference? Some people seem to have already made their minds up.

Question 1- he hasn't failed any drug tests so far. What more can he do?

Question 2- he was fastest because... he was faster!

Question 3- dunno, but what's yours?

But look - he has his hand over his mouth. That suggests to me he has something to hide.

L'Equipe have been quick to slam Contador's pathetic press conference. I'm sure others feel the same too. Contador's still got question marks hanging over him from Operacion Puerto, yet alone his time at Discovery and Astana. "Siguiente pregunta" isn't enough, he needs to show he's relaxed and happy to chat about VO2 max or VAM.

If it was me I could explain the VAM numbers by the tailwind on the day, by the short climb, by the fast pace set on the gentle lower slopes by Saxo. I'd also point to the high VAM numbers generated by the others, they weren't so far behind. Ask any politician, if you're in trouble you don't reply with "no comment", you need to have an explanation. But no, instead, he's just getting uppity and defensive. At best this is weak PR, at worst it risks undermining his credibility.

Approach a clean rider about doping and they'll usually tell it straight about the cheats. Nibali said dopers "should be locked up". Wiggins called Di Luca a "wanker". Jerome Pineau slammed Rebellin a "hooligan". There are loads of other examples of riders openly stating the difference between right and wrong on the record and many more will say stronger things off the record.

Certainly Contador should have a better response, but giving the "guilty until you prove your innocence" crap any acknowledgement is stupid. While I have serious doubts about many Tour cyclists and doping (even the ones who scream about it as Kleber mentioned), a guy like Greg Lemond shouldn't have the platform that he has. His entire argument about doping these days is centered on his belief that VO2 max will not change with training. It is well established that VO2 max will change, and his argument about Contador's Verbier climb is stupid too. Take an elite runner's mile time and correlate that to what a VO2 max would be at that speed with Lemond's equations. Lemond isn't taking into consideration that an athlete can maintain a power output over their power output at VO2 max. Certainly no one can do that for a full 20 minutes, but it can be done in the last 2-3 KM of a race

I certainly appreciate Lemond's willingness to have riders prove they are clean, but I am not sure if his comments are scientifically relevant and number two, I am starting to get tired of him casting stones every TDF. It's really starting to sound like sour grapes....its just like shaq when he was asked about Dwight Howard and he made disparaging comments about him.....he hasn't failed a doping test (yet maybe we don't really know) but thats no reason to question every one of his performances!!! I am no Contador fan (honestly I have had my doubts about him since Operation Puerto) but you gotta let the guy race. Still he (Contador) needs to understand that performances like that will bring questions and saying next question in the current environment is not good especially the day after DiLuca is nailed (finally thank god) by the UCI.

He's my nieghbour,just 10 minutes up the road so i'm biased. But what is it with G Lemond and Le Mond newspaper they are unhappy with who ever wins,they believe everybody who wins is doped.

If Alberto had answered........what??? would they believe him or maybe just made something out of nothing of his answers.

He's a talented cyclist from an early age............like Lance,but people seem to forget that. He ,like Armstrong nearly died also!!!

Yet they have life to fight on stronger.

Just stop trying to bring the tour down and enjoy what has been a great last week and saturday will be awesome.

Anybody want a yellow home coming shirt from Pinto when we celerbrate he's fine win.

Lemond is pushing for vo2 max testing. Yes it changes by small percentages naturally and gradually with training; but the use of drugs augments a riders Vo2 ceiling artificially and massively . It is a key indicator of doping and should be at least considered.

NOTHING SHOULD BE HIDDEN. Clean riders are open. for cycling to progress riders have to be transparent.

I might have completly missed the point here being new to cycling, but why is Alberto (and Wiggings) suddendly smacked of his tits, because hes turning some great performances? I thought because (again new to cycling so im proberly missing the point) he trains like ten men, had thousands invested in his training (no pun inended) and learned his trade, surly winning all grand tours and most likley this tour, my first real tour and loving it I might add!! and proberly being targeted loads on winning the tours, I agree with with Dave stop being so bloody cynical, if there doping there getting caught ala Di Luca and enjoy the Tour, and come on Wiggins!!! P.S Yer dave would love a jersey mate!!!!

Greg Lemond is a pure scum bag. Can he prove to us that he didn't dope? Does he think that by accusing everyone else that he puts himself above suspicion and by bestowing upon himself the title of "witchfinder general" he can slight everyone else with impunity?

Contador committed absolutely no faux pas. The journalists who asked such questions at his moment of celebration are totally ignorant, uneducated and degenerate gutter dwelling dirt - the lowest, basest possible representation of humanity.

Of course Contador cannot prove his innocence - precisely as none of the million Europeans tortured to death for witchcraft during the Spanish Inquisition could prove their innocence. Yes - not a single one was guilty. If Contador had a snappy response it should simply have been to ask if this was intended to be a press conference or second Spanish Inquisition. But Contador is not meant to fight that battle - he is a cyclist par excellence and he did absolutely the correct thing to keep his mouth shut.

The best retort to moronic journalists - and they really are pathetic morons at best - is to say "And you sir, can you prove to me that you are not a paedophile? - and if not why not? - because for all the world you appear to be one."

Yes, let's make Contador prove that he's the real deal. This from a guy that says that the whole reason he couldn't compete in his last Tour was because every other rider was doping. LeMond has done nothing but whine and accuse everyone else of cheating for about the last 20 years. He needs a new hobby.

Woah feedbackdestroyer I think you need to get a breathalyser for your computer. We need journalists to ask difficult questions. It's kinda their job.

There are a small number of cyclists I trust to be clean. This isn't to say the others are dopers, it's just that I can't be confident either way. Sadly this is the state that cycling has got to. Where we are let down time and time again. One of the key things that helps me choose who to believe in is the way they respond to questions like this.

Let's just say Contador's not on my list.

Asking someone's VO2 max is quite a straightforward question for a professional cyclist. It's like asking what they have for breakfast the day of a race.

Greg Lemond needs to shut up until he is willing to confess to his own transgressions. Anyone that doubts his own doping needs only listen to the ESPN documentary on great athletes, and his ex-wife (non-vindictive) comments about asking him if he had done everything he could possibly do to be competitive with the peleton that was now dropping him a year or so after being a Tour Champion. "Have you done EVERYTHING Greg? EVERYTHiNG? EVERYTHiNG?" Sure, it was a renewed passion for cycling that took him from the back of the pack to winning again against a huge group that has since confessed to doping. And Greg was the only one that was winning clean. Right.

For Alberto to comment on his VO2max when accusers are using ignorant calculation to paint him into a corner would be as foolish as the calculations. Even if he were comfortable and confident interacting with the press, which he has never been, it would be silly of him to engage in baited questions that have little to do with the race or truth.

As for #1. Can you please respond to what Greg LeMond said in Le Monde about proving that you’re not doped? I will respond after Mr Lemond proves that he did not dope in any of his tour victories. Thank you.

#2. You were the fastest up Verbier, and now you’re the fastest in this time trial. Can you explain that ?

I got a tongue lashing from Johan yesterday when I surged on the climb and gapped my teammate, so I had to just sit back and take it easy the rest of the way up. I was pretty rested by the end. Glad that I didn't have to work in a breakaway like Fabian or scramble to keep up like my competitors. It is always nice to go into a ride rested when the competition is still recovering.

#3. Can you please tell us what your VO2 Max is? Not when accusations are being made against me based ignorant calculations and assumptions.

How does Lemond calculate his VO2 max for his fastest ever average speed in a TDF time trial? (It was fastest until Zabriskie barely broke it in a shorter TT on a far better bike, likely with far better wind tunnel testing).

He makes all of these accusations about guys who can ride up mountains fast and TT super fast, but he had the record for the TT that stood through ALL of the known dopers in the 1990's, even the dopers who were only TT specialists. And certainly Lemond could climb as well. He needs to get shot...again.

The last time I checked, cycling wasn't a VO2 max test. Maybe Greg thinks the tour should consist of 21 VO2 max tests. He can go around the buses and hand out the bears himself at the and of the day.

If VO2 max counts for much of anything maybe it might in 1 day races. Nobody is going to be able to ride their rested VO2 max come Saturday up Mount Ventoux where they will be all varying degrees of tired, worn out, sore, beat half to death.

VO2 max is something a rider can only do for moments anyway. More important is how long someone can ride at 80 or 90% or 95% of that and I'd bet that varies according to how mentally strong someone is.

It's maddening to see the psudosientfic bunk about rate of climb the other day being given the slightest credibility.

What flimsy evidence! I would have thought that this article and the commments it refers to are libelous/slanderous.

Contador has been subjected to the same doping tests as all the other riders. Either he has found a substance as yet unknown to medical science or else he is clean. I'll consider him as clean until tests prove otherwise.

As an aside, I think that a positive test should automatically invoke a lifetime ban. No prospect of a return after two years. And also all previous victories erased from the record. These riders are nothing but cheats and should be treated with the contempt that they have invited upon themselves by their own actions.

Why can no-one believe that he's any good without doping? Whenever any cyclist achieves something great, the press and the supposed cycing "fans" alike seem all too eager to bring that person down with scepticism and wild speculation. This speculation seems to apply to "Wiggo's" recent performance as well. It seems a peculiarly British thing too. We are very good in the UK at assuming the worst and putting people down in general. How sad. Until someone is actually found guilty of doping by scientific tests, please can we all assume they are innocent?

This is not right. Basically if the guy has not doped then he has worked his butt off for a long time to get where he is. As soon as he arrives he is hounded as if he is a cheat and a liar on the basis of no evidence. As for a critique of his lack of politically correct answers. He is not a politician, he is a sportsman. What annoys me about cycling fans is that they have been bitten before by other riders so they assume everyone is on drugs. You can't have it both ways. Either let them all take drugs or believe that they are not on drugs until the evidence points otherwise.

I'm also not surprised that any cyclist gets fed up with the same old questions about doping. Why should he have anything to say other than "FFS will you stop going on about it?!!" or "How many times do you want me to say I don'tt do it?!!" etc . He's too polite to swear and thrown punches of course, so instead used the "Next question" response which was akin to saying "I will not dignify your inane and immensely boring question that I have heard many times before with a response, because whatever I say you will interpret in your own way anyway, so I can't be bothered to answer it". Well, good for him. Me, I'd have got annoyed and stamped about a bit!

Listen Dulldave, asking someone to prove their innocence is not a "difficult question" - it is a totally ignorant question. Our civilization tries to protect us from this behaviour by legally ensuring that we are all treated and respected as innocent until we are proven guilty - not the other way around. If journalists wish to abandon civility then I respectfully suggest that they should not be treated with civility - and that applies to Greg Lemond also.

Sure there are dopers out there and they are frequently caught, but we do not abandon the basic tennets of our civilization because of them, we do not degenerate into witchhunting where people have to prove their innocence. History shows us the dreadful outcome of such a path - and that is why it is only the uneducated and ignorant who would take a step in that direction.

Yes, the journalists have the right of freedom of speech, and likewise Contador has the right to ignore them without that leading to any form of suspicion or accusation. If the journalist who wrote the artice above was intelligent he would be defending and respecting Contador's civil rights and not defending other moronic journalists who are trying to create a scandal and Contador's expense. Perhaps this is how journalists have to act to express thier inferiority complexes and that fact that they are nothing in comparison to the likes of Contador. It boosts the journalists self-importance because he can get one over on Contador's achievements and be something more than a passive reporter.

Journalists are scum - pure scum and they should be asking some difficult questions about themselves.

He's a bike rider, not a PR frontman cum politician. No wonder he wasnt able to give some good pearl-of-wisdom answers.

He's on the podium enjoying his victories and he's shattered from an hour's worth of max effort. Hardly appropriate times to expect well-thought, snappy answers on a related but serious subject.

climb out of the toilet you pressmen.

Obviously we don't want to just always give riders the benefit of the doubt but there has to be some sort of limit. It's impossible for Contador (or whoever) to prove their innocence to the satisfaction of everybody, all he can do really is pass the tests, which he has. I don't doubt that there are still ways of beating the tests and that some dopers pass them, but that doesn't mean that everybody who passes the tests is a doper and they shouldn't be treated as such. It's a pretty sad day when winner = doper.

That said, he didn't really handle the questions well. He's provided people with an agenda to pursue something to hang their accusations on.

Lemond is an old bitter and twisted individual.

He was one of the greats (3 times winner) but he seems to think that anyone who can win a stage is doped. Throwing doubt upon the results with nothing more than hearsay, just heightens my belief that journalists should be rounded up and shot as vermin.

Frankly Lemonds ranting are getting tiresome, put up or shut up I say.

Lemond-poacher turned gamekeeper?

It amazes me the number of angry apologists there seem to be in defense of doping. LeMond asks three questions, that's all. Reasonable given the history of doping in our sport.

Everything I have heard from Greg LeMond seems pretty reasonable. Check the history on Armstrong. He just asked him a question - it was Armstrong who reacted with such venom (predictably never answering the question).

Good post Daniel.

Another bitter yank having a go at Contador....sorry did I say that out loud.!!!! Well, the lads done a great job winning this tour, including attacking his own team, because he loves it. Armstrong decided to grace us at this years tour by taking over a 3 grand tours winners team and wanting the world to evolve around him and his fancy paint jobbed bikes, and we should want him to win, i dont think so.

Get over it Le Mond or hand in your evidance to the UCI and lets get the cheats out!......you have none!!!!

Keep shooting AC your a legend.

Given the pro-Contador, anti-Lemond invective displayed here, there's an awful lot of people who are going to feel pretty silly if Contador ever does get caught... Just sayin'.

I wonder if all those people are aware of Contador's history and links to Op Puerto? It is absolutely correct that a rider around whom suspicion has existed in the past shuold be questioned now - that is the job of journalists.

It remains a fact that those who are suspected, are frequently proven to be dopers (sure, you can't prove a negative, but look at Di Luca, Ricco, Rasmussen, Sella, Vinokourov, Hamilton the list goes on), and that I can't recall a rider who has dissed dopers as Wiggins has ever been caught (though there are probably some I'm not aware of).

This is a court of public opinion, not a court of law, and noone has a 'right' to be assumed innocent by all members of the public. A free press is both allowed and encouraged to investigate suspicion of wrongdoing. There are limits but I don't think anyone has crossed them in the matters under discussion in this article. I myself, Lemond and many others have an informed opinion of certain riders, and feel that those performing outstandingly, and/or linked to certain dodgy people etc have something to prove - why shouldn't we?

For my part, I suspect and hope it is possible that Contador has ridden clean this year, though I'm convinced in my own mind that has not always been the case. If he wishes to reassure people of this, then answering the questions above is a necessity. Of course, if he doesn't care, then he has every right to ignore the questions, but I have every right to draw my own conclusions from that.

Someone said that he has passed all drugs tests (actually we don't know that, but let's assume so) - what that poster may not be aware of is that many forms of doping cannot currently be properly tested for, including autologous blood transfusions for example. The bio-passport is helps with this, but not a perfect science (micro-dosing etc.), and in any case must stand up in a court of law, where the burden of proof is strong, so even if the UCI believe a rider is probably doping, they cannot necessarily prove it using the passport. They do of course target such riders for further testing though which may sometimes be more conclusive, but they know riders are getting away with it. Bjarne Riis admitted doping to win the TdeF, but never failed a test.

As we cannot rely on testing to be able to trust riders, and as doping appears to be so common, if the more sceptical of us wish to trust a rider, we must also draw upon the inconclusive, intangible knowledge, public statements and interviews, rumours (which sadly can often be a relatively useful *contribution* to our opinion, based on source, timing, corroboration of facts, and the fact many turn out to be true), attitudes towards doping, teams and doctors they have been linked to, scientific evaluations of performance etc to judge for ourselves whether we should believe in riders. Based on that I believe in Wiggins (but I wouldn't bet my life on anyone), but not (yet) in Contador this year, and I certainly believe he has not had a 100% clean career.

We're not talking about the relatively rare crime of murder here - doping has been rife to the extent that it is widely believed (and alledged by some of the participants) that the majority of the peloton were doping at certain points, even if things are now, we hope, very much cleaner. It is therefore appropriate in my view to be more sceptical, regarding innocence, than one might be about accusing a random man in the street of being a murderer, or a paedophile, as was suggested by a previous poster.

Everyone is entitlfed to an opinion, and if you choose to be optimistic and believe by default, feel free. My advice - take it or leave it - is that you make sure you're prepared, just in case, for the disappointment that took myself and others from that point of view to one that is more circumspect. Don't be distracted by the face that people are 'nice either - some of those caught already have had wonderful personalities, but are subject to temptations we cannot imagine. Its not about just the riders either. Manager, staff, doctors, even close family have been involved, so we shouldn't assume this is all about good or bad riders.

Re the opinions expressed about Lemond, I suppose amongst other things it is possible there is an element of bitterness (not that everything he does revolves around it). But wouldn't you be bitter, if you had achieved things clean as I believe/hope (or at the very least without the benefit of the seriously clever doping that emerged later on), and saw people making a mockery of the sport you love? I believe he is doing what he can to try and clean up the sport, but don't forget that this area of sports science is his field now.

Argue the point not the man - making comments about Lemond being bitter and twisted without addressing what he is saying is petty and foolish.

Trying to deny the fact that cycling still has a doping problem (even if we believe other sports are in a worse predicament) simply delays the days when a non-cycling member of the public can look at other sports, and ask why they cannot be more like that clean, true test of athletic ability and talent, cycling, where the drama takes place on, and not off the bike.

Contador, perhaps even the whole of Astana, could be clean this year (no laughing in the back there!), but we'll not assure ourselves of that by taking their assurances as read, and reading nice unquestioning articles about how wonderful they are.

The burden of having the yellow jersey and having to cope with doping allegations, and been stung and blood sucked at almost every stage is something sickening, dreadful, something that doesnt happen in any other sport.

It's been 10 years since Armstrong's maiden TdF victory and still you hear not only the echoes but the questions and comments of lonely souls like LeMond claiming that he won because he doped himself.....Two years ago Rassmussen was kicked out of the Tour for telling lies about his whereabouts...having a yellow jersey...having not failed any TdF doping test!!! Now the guns are aiming at Contador, "experts" claim that his VO2Max is beyond human nature, his VRM is the highest in history, his power output at Verbier can not be explained....From a few numbers available -if you trust them-Contador's performance is not better than the best ones; good but not beyond category. This TdF is been a poor showcase of pure, wild, extended mountain climbing; nothing like the ones we saw duing the eighties, nineties and on the legs of Armstrong during his 7-year dominance. The Tour is almost done and basically -if we assume attacks will occur on Ventoux- we will have just two stages with climbing attacks. The 20 minutes Contador led the ascension to Verbier is not enough for a Tour to be remembered....much less to use it as an excuse to accuse Contador of doping.

If Contador's is doped, we will know by next week. In the meantime, people -including journalists- should be respectful about his achievements. please swallow the sour grapes, don't bite them. If some cycling fans are bitter by the prospect of Armstrong failing to win the Tour try to do something good; ride a bike, watch a cycling movie, get a life.... but stop taining the achievements of exceptional riders like Armstrong and Contador.

The beautiful showing of LeMond twenty years ago during several TdF in a row are losing trascendence when you read his columns full of finger-pointing and bitter qualifications to riders like Armstrong and Contador; no rider needs to explain or to show anything to LeMond or to any body else; doping screening is a matter of highly specialized technicians and the anti-doping enforcement is in the hands of the UCI, WADA, and the national sport agencies. If LeMond or any of you "expert" guys wants to trigger a witchhunt, again, against Contador, then get a degree, start working for one of those agencies or become a lawyer and start filing suits against the riders for "bringing the sport into disrepute"....but please bring along proofs to support your claims.

In the meantime, let us -the cycling fans around the world- enjoy the culmination of a new TdF, let's rejoice by the stunning performance of Armstrong, the endless sprint power of Cavendish and Hushovd, and the perfect pair of climbers from Saxo Bank. If you just dont want Contador's to become the next winner just turn off the TV and do something else.....don't fill the blogs with junk, villains and numbers without any real proof.....get a life

By the way, watch the Tour de France best climbs ever,

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV8AxAzwW30&videos=HrLI7DUigyw&playnext_from=TL&playnext=1)

and see what real climbing is about.....this TdF has been, so far, a joke of climbing. Why finger-pointing at someone claiming doping when he has done anything extraordinaire?

Well put kourou. Cycling isn't a black and white thing and we should take time to reflect on things. It's funny when LeMond raises a point, some seem quick to jump on him. Why? Instead we could easily debate the VAM numbers to Verbier, we could discuss why Contador refuses to answer questions or we could ask why the Spaniard's name came up on so many documents from the Puerto case. This doesn't mean accusing anyone, it's just asking for some dialogue. Refusing to answer questions only gives doubters more to worry about.