• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Caisse puts Piti on non-active status

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 27, 2009
133
0
0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Publicus
Then what would you suggest? That they let bygones be bygones?

ak-zaaf said:
Yes. If a case drags along for this long a suspension makes no sense. He's won a monument and a GT since the sh|tstorm started.

There isn't a good alternative because the UCI is full of idiots, the ASO only cares about money and individual countries can't get along and make the rules the same regarding doping.
That is not the fault of some guy who was on a team program years ago.

I'm all for catching dopers. But not after so many years and not randomly.
Puerto should be closed if the Spaniards won't give every last detail to the 'doping-investigators'.

Not many will agree with me, but I think this has gone on for far too long and a suspension for Valverde will not make things better for anyone.

Count me in bro you'd already said it all.

The UCI doesnt have the credibility and there are lots of dopers out there that should have been banned and yet they go unpunished.Lets be fair.Valverde is an excellent rider,imo.Banning him just to satisfy a few will not do good.Let bygones be bygones.Lets start all over again.:)
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Delicato said:
OK, my bad.
appreciate you rethinking it.
Actually Ferrari said Valverde is potentially stronger than Contador. I read that in 2008, kinda forgot the details.
a statement about someone's strength rather than talent needs to be looked at in the context. in the link you provided, ferrari did not elaborate and did not refer to some abstract comparative situation - the context was the vuelta and mostly about levi vs contador.

if you look up-thread, you'll see i consider valverde a huge talent. there is no agreement among the sports physiologists on how to measure a true talent but, as i said above, the insiders in the industry have a very good idea who's worth what, even considering peds. valve has the anaerobic kick similar to contadors, his aerobic capacity is also similar (as evidenced by him matching
berto's climbing rate on a 10% climb in p-n this year).

but he consistently lagged behind bertos improvements in time trialing. so, ferrari's statement about valverde potentially being stronger just has not been confirmed by the reality). drug or not.
 
Publicus said:
Time he pays the piper. And I say this as a fan as well. Though I think it will hurt him from a negotiating standpoint (with the eminent demise of Caisse), especially if the rumors that Alfonso and Bank of Santander are setting up team (though it would smooth the way for AC to move over without much drama).

Yep, I'm going to miss him. If I were to pick one rider that I wouldn't be offended being called a "fanboy" of he would be it. Oh well. He'll be back racing in Italy in 2012 won't he?:D That should be interesting.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,274
1
0
From podiumcafe:
... The UCI woke up and went all hard core: The UCI called upon the arbitrators to reject Valverde’s appeal, extend his sanction worldwide, and disqualify all his results since May 2004. My head spins at the thought of revising results for all races where Valverde received a result since 2004.

Well, I rather do this than go shopping, so here's all Valverde's wins since May 2004 and the guys who finished 2nd behind it.

2004:
Vuelta a Castilla y Leon, Stage 4 : Leon - Alto del Morredero - K. Gil
Vuelta a Castilla y Leon, Stage 5 : Ponferrada - Villafranca del Bierzo - M. Perdiguero
Vuelta a Burgos, Stage 1 : Burgos - Poza de la Sal - D. Menchov
Vuelta a Burgos, Stage 2 : Lerma - Aranda de Duero - A. Usov
Vuelta a Burgos, Stage 3 : Areniscas de los Pinares - Lag. De Neila - D. Menchov
Vuelta a Burgos - D. Menchov
Vuelta a España, Stage 3 : Burgos - Soria - S. O'Grady
2005:
Trofeo Manacor - R. Mutsaars
Trofeo Soller - R. Serrano
Paris - Nice, Stage 7 : Nice - Nice - F. Pellizotti
Vuelta al Pais Vasco, Stage 3 : Ortuella - Gasteiz - G. Lombardi
Vuelta al Pais Vasco, Stage 4 : Gasteiz - Altsasu - D. Di Luca
Tour de France, Stage 10 : Grenoble - Courchevel - L. Armstrong
2006:
Vuelta a Murcia - Costa Calida, Stage 2 : Alcantarilla - Alhama de Murcia - A. Vicioso
Vuelta al Pais Vasco, Stage 1 : Irun - Irun - O. Freire
Vuelta al Pais Vasco, Points classification - S. Sanchez
Flèche Wallonne - S. Sanchez
Liège - Bastogne - Liège - P. Bettini
Tour de Romandie, Stage 4 : Sion - Sion - A. Moos
Tour de Romandie, Points classification - C. Evans
Vuelta a España, Stage 7 : Leon - Alto de El Morredero - C. Sastre
2007:
Volta a la Comunitat Valenciana - T. Valjavec
Vuelta a Murcia - Costa Calida, Stage 4 : Alhama de Murcia - Aledo I.T.T. - J. Gomez Marchante
Vuelta a Murcia - Costa Calida - A. Vicioso
Clasica a Alcobendas y Collado Villalba, Stage 3 : Alcobendas I.T.T. - F. Perez
Vuelta a Burgos, Stage 4 : Ribera del Cuero I.T.T. - M. Ignatiev
2008:
Vuelta a Murcia - Costa Calida, Stage 4 : Alhama de Murcia - Aledo I.T.T. - S. Garzelli
Vuelta a Murcia - Costa Calida - S. Garzelli
Paris - Camembert Lepetit - J. Pineau
Liège - Bastogne - Liège - D. Rebellin
Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré, Stage 1 : Avignon - Privas - T. Hushovd
Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré, Stage 3 : Saint-Paul-en-Jarez I.T.T. - L. Leipheimer
Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré - C. Evans
Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré, Points classification - L. Leipheimer
National Championships Spain (Talavera de la Reina) R.R. - O. Sevilla
Tour de France, Stage 1 : Brest - Plumelec - P. Gilbert
Tour de France, Stage 6 : Aigurande - Super Besse - C. Evans
Clasica San Sebastian - San Sebastian - A. Kolobnev
Vuelta a España, Stage 2 : Granada - Jaen - D. Rebellin
2009:
Vuelta a Castilla y Leon, Stage 3 : Sahagun - Puerto de San Isidro - R. Plaza
Vuelta a Castilla y Leon, Stage 5 : Benavente - Valladolid - J. Rojas
Klasika Primavera Amorebieta - E. Martinez
Volta a Catalunya, Stage 3 : Roses - La Pobla de Lillet - D. De La Fuente
Volta a Catalunya - D. Martin
Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré - C. Evans
Vuelta a Burgos - X. Tondo
Vuelta a España - S. Sanchez
2010:
Tour Méditerranéen - R. Nocentini
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
as was pointed out by several posters, all valverde performances after his suspension in italy are legally suspect and will likely be reversed by cas.

and rightly so even if cut and paste function works well for some.

cas rulling unequivocally indicates that valverde used legal loop holes to continue racing.
 
... The UCI woke up and went all hard core: The UCI called upon the arbitrators to reject Valverde’s appeal, extend his sanction worldwide, and disqualify all his results since May 2004. My head spins at the thought of revising results for all races where Valverde received a result since 2004.

Whoah! Why they got to do a brother like that? That is harsh. That is six years of results even though the ban is only two years. It does not make a lot of sense.
 
BroDeal said:
They should void all his wins since the Italian ban.

How can you void wins of someone whose discretion took place several years prior to the events in question? If he had tested positive during these events then the wins should be voided, but he was tested during these events, is/was on the blood passport and no irregularities have surfaced. They should have simply banned him from racing when they acknowledged the CONI DNA match was authentic.

I usually avoid the clinic at all costs so if I'm not up on the latest technical details and info please excuse me.
 
Sep 21, 2009
2,978
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
Good podium piece explaining all the legal dealings in simple terms:
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/3/26/1392422/the-valverde-decision

Thanks. The best summary I've read on the subject so far. And it just confirms my suspicions:

The rules of admissable evidence are extraordinarily loose at TAS, and the panel of arbiters "is not bound by rules of evidence and may inform itself in such a manner as the arbiters think fit."

Sports authorities are not bound by any principle or international agreement regarding the application of rules.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Angliru said:
How can you void wins of someone whose discretion took place several years prior to the events in question? If he had tested positive during these events then the wins should be voided, but he was tested during these events, is/was on the blood passport and no irregularities have surfaced. They should have simply banned him from racing when they acknowledged the CONI DNA match was authentic.

I usually avoid the clinic at all costs so if I'm not up on the latest technical details and info please excuse me.
then you should either continue avoiding the clinic or read the relevant posts BEFORE offering an argument that has missed every point in those posts.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Edit:Of course CONI should not have been the ones to bring this case - that was the responsibility of the Spanish Federation (RFEC), they and Valverde are the ones who have prolonged this case.

Adiós Valverde.

But wasn't the initial reason for inaction by the RFEC because this was not a punishiable defense under Spanish law at the time, there was no law to break and thus no crime committed?:confused:
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
again angrilu you need to read prime sources not someones interpretations of those sources - like podium cafe's factually wrong article.

the primary source is cas ruling. they did not make statements attributed to them by that article.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Angliru said:
Gladly. Consider me gone.
id gladly entertain your concerns and thoughts with facts and evidence but it was obvious your mind was not open to a factual discussion, rather a lobbying for a favourite rider.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
BroDeal said:
Whoah! Why they got to do a brother like that? That is harsh. That is six years of results even though the ban is only two years. It does not make a lot of sense.

OK, what I don't understand is how Valverde's results can be voided when Davide Rebellin, who tested positive to CERA in retrospective testing at the 2008 Olympics but won La Fleche Wallone in 2009, can keep his La Fleche Wallone win? The circumstances are similar - Rebellin continued to race because the retrospective testing on the Olympic samples was not performed until spring 2009. Just as Valverde has continued to race until the likely event that the CONI ban will become worldwide. Why does Rebellin get to keep his results between the positive test and being banned, but not Valverde?
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
R.0.t.O said:
Puerto justice has been slow-coming and highly random, but we are getting towards the end of it and at least in cycling there will be an element of equal treatment once Valverde goes into the sin-bin. Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi, Sevilla have all had some kind of penalty - Don Alejandro has always been the stand-out name and now he's getting his. It's still a mess of course and the chances of "a big-name Spanish tennis player" going down are exactly zero, nevermind Real Madrid and Barcelona coming back into the story.

Sorry, I am going to call you on the bolded portion because IMO this is BS. Sorry to be so harsh. But three riders have confessed to their involvement in OP when the evidence mounted against them (Basso, Jaschke and Scarponi), that's it. Yes, some riders have been forced into retirement and others are racing with lesser teams. But only three riders have been suspended because of their involvement with OP, and now likely a fourth in Valverde. How can you say that suspending a fourth rider is getting towards the end of cycling's involvement in OP when 50+ riders were implicated? And after reading the Podium Cafe blog, what about the other 8 riders who had EPO in their bags of blood? Cycling is still neck deep in OP but all the involved authorities and judicial systems lack the impetus, will and/or legal capabilities to further pursue cases against the remaining riders (ad other sports). While Valverde is guilty, it was still a targeted hunt and he is still a scapegoat of sorts because CONI and the UCI can pat themselves on the back, pretend they have done a good job (which CONI actually has), and conveniently ignore the remaining implicated riders. Sorry forgot ... they're not ignoring all the remaining riders. The UCI are still going after long-retired Ullrich. That makes a whole bunch of sense considering all the other implicated riders who continue to race.
 
python said:
id gladly entertain your concerns and thoughts with facts and evidence but it was obvious your mind was not open to a factual discussion, rather a lobbying for a favourite rider.

You're probably right. I just don't want to tie up anymore of my time in the forums than I already do. The clinic and its subject matter is an area that while I am curious to learn more about I can't devote the time at the expense of what I really enjoy in the forums which is just discussing the races, riders and teams. That is one of the reasons I rarely post in the clinic or in any of the other sub-forums.

Your response just caught me off guard and seemed rather dismissive. My post was presented in question form conveying my uncertainty about what I thought were the circumstances as I understood them and yet your response was to tell me to read the previous posts instead of doing as your post says and (paraphrasing) "gladly entertaining my concerns and thoughts with facts and evidence". I likely overreacted though due to my Valverde "fanboy" mindset and posting before my normal morning caffeine boost.
 
elapid said:
OK, what I don't understand is how Valverde's results can be voided when Davide Rebellin, who tested positive to CERA in retrospective testing at the 2008 Olympics but won La Fleche Wallone in 2009, can keep his La Fleche Wallone win? The circumstances are similar - Rebellin continued to race because the retrospective testing on the Olympic samples was not performed until spring 2009. Just as Valverde has continued to race until the likely event that the CONI ban will become worldwide. Why does Rebellin get to keep his results between the positive test and being banned, but not Valverde?

I think this case, like many others, show that the authorities are making it up as they go along. The lack of rules and inconsistency will get them in trouble when someone decides he will fight it out in a real court.
 
Sep 21, 2009
2,978
0
0
BroDeal said:
I think this case, like many others, show that the authorities are making it up as they go along. The lack of rules and inconsistency will get them in trouble when someone decides he will fight it out in a real court.

Sports authorities have protected themselves against that event. They have ensured that governments have granted them exclusive rights in the ruling of their private business. So if anyone takes them to a real court they will point to whatever article in their private statute and they will threaten with strong disciplinary actions. It's already happened.

The only case I remember of an athlete taking sports authorities to a real court and winning is the Bosman case. But he had the EU behind him. Should have been a single country, it would have been a lost case.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Angliru said:
You're probably right. I just don't want to tie up anymore of my time in the forums than I already do. The clinic and its subject matter is an area that while I am curious to learn more about I can't devote the time at the expense of what I really enjoy in the forums which is just discussing the races, riders and teams. That is one of the reasons I rarely post in the clinic or in any of the other sub-forums.

Your response just caught me off guard and seemed rather dismissive. My post was presented in question form conveying my uncertainty about what I thought were the circumstances as I understood them and yet your response was to tell me to read the previous posts instead of doing as your post says and (paraphrasing) "gladly entertaining my concerns and thoughts with facts and evidence". I likely overreacted though due to my Valverde "fanboy" mindset and posting before my normal morning caffeine boost.
my apologizes if i came across rude. it was not meant.
 
I'm more interested in what happens if Valverde is suspended by the UCI after already serving 1 year of his Italian ban. If he does get the requisite 2 year ban from the UCI, how does this apply to Italy. His suspension there will be up in 2011, so will he be able to resume racing in Italy - and only Italy, so he can't do the Giro if it touches foreign soil? I know this probably won't be the case, but a UCI suspension would account for a 3 year ban in one country, which seems a bit excessive compared to the fate of other riders.

I realize that many posters will feel that Valverde has it coming, but my main problem with Puerto has been the overall inconsistency of handling any results and the long, long length it has dragged on. As I stated in the Ullrich thread, I really think that the UCI would just prefer that everyone who was named in the original report just voluntarily retire, so they don't have to actually try to take action.