• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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. Thanks!

Can someome explain why Valverde is still allowed to race?

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 16, 2009
394
0
0
Visit site
TeamSkyFans said:
Joking aside.. some good news - valverde evidence LEGALLY OBTAINED

Hopefully that will silence the clowns arguing that the evidence was obtained illegally. However, I see their defence of Piti has now moved on to say that the doping was such a long time ago it shouldn't matter now!
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
Love the Scenery said:
Pretty much the sort of response that I expected. You act as if Valverde's alleged doping with Kelme was an individual choice, as if he went out of his way to seek out these drugs in order to subvert the sport of cycling. That's not the way it was. Again, let me emphasize, if Manzano is to be believed, Valverde was threatened with being fired if he did not take the drugs, as the whole team was threatened. To go after the riders in a situation like this--and six years after the events, at that--is just ridiculous. Has CONI or anyone else gone after the team managers and doctors that perpetrated this crime? No, of course not. Because the team managers who forced these drugs on the riders have all gotten off scot-free. It is wrong, absolutely wrong, to go after Valverde for being recruited by a team that was, according to Manzano, an organized doping ring. You are acting as if he went out of his way to take these substances, when what happened is his choice was take them or be, not only forced out of the sport, but declared a traitor to the sport and never hired again. Now, if the people who actually committed the crimes--obtaining the drugs, coercing riders into taking them, and administering the drugs to riders--were caught and punished, that would be justice. Valverde may have taken the drugs but the point of Spanish law is that he is not held responsible for consuming drugs--those legally responsible are his suppliers. CONI has it completely backwards, as do you.

Well, please accept my humblest apologies, then. I had it all backwards, you see. Thanks to you, I've seen the light. Mr.Pitiful was forced to dope, and he had no individual choice. The team probably held his wife and kids hostage, see, and pushed him into it. The really, really bad guys get off scot-free, I really, really don't understand the point of spanish law, and besides it all happened in a distant prehistoric time, so we can hardly remember it, and what's the point of it all.

Not bad for a second post on this forum!
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
Your argument in support of clean riders is like a religious argument in support of a higher power. While there is no tangible proof that either exists, the faithful continue to profess their belief. Doping didn't start with Tom Simpson, and it is not going to end when they throw Valverde under the bus.

I believe that Darwin had it right. The evolution of the species depends on the demise and sacrifice of the few, to educate the masses on just what they can get away with. You can maintain the romantic notion that Valverde is an anomaly in professional cycling, but he is more accurately a product of natural selection at the highest level.

Every professional at that level does exactly what he needs to do to remain competitive, and they always have, all the way back to the origins of the sport. Some of those practices have been made illegal, and some of those practices are yet to be, but will in the future. Those that survive will adapt their methods or be sacrificed to further educate the group and prolong their survival. And you cannot name a sport where this is not the case.

Those that believe in fairness in sport will continue to make rules to try, but fail to attain that ethereal concept. The reality is that the talent pool at the top of the food chain in cycling is deeper than it has been in the history of the sport. There is greater parity in all categories of riders from the Classics to Grand Tours, and from sprinter to climbers. That is a sign of a relatively healthy species.

There is nothing fair about competitive sport. Some competitors have more power, some more talent, or endurance, or intelligence. Competition exists to show us who is best adapted to the effort. The winner is almost always the one with the greatest advantage. "The strongest rider always wins the Tour", is often repeated cliche among riders and commentators alike.

If we really wanted to make competition "fair" you'd have to eliminate any tangible advantages in bicycle aerodynamics and weight. Make them all use the same wheels, frames, helmets etc... and yeah, that's all pretty f@#kin silly. It is ironic that we let, encourage, even rely on the natural selection of equipment at the highest levels of the sport, and in the end attempt to arbitrarily control human nature at it's most competitive level. Good luck with that.

You can feel good about putting Valverde down as a doper, and as an example at an attempt at fairness. Whether it is good for the sport or not is a matter of individual opinion that will never be settled. But you can't do it without teaching the rest of the peloton how to survive and do it better next time. That's the nature of evolution.

Like it or not, but "The nature of evolution", the survival of the fittest, and the morality you apparently believe is a given, natural result of evolution, is often curbed by legislation. Like it or not, but that legislation is also a result of evolutionary processes. Please don't confuse evolutionary processes with morality.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
hektoren said:
<snip> "The nature of evolution",

hectoren pls stop beating your head against the wall coz it gives me a headache. ;)

in stead, check out this poll for the answers on evolution, relative morality, law and much more

all debates are a waste of time, if almost 60% say 'yeas i would dope'
 
Love the Scenery said:
I think this is the main point. When he was virtually a neopro, Valverde was in Kelme, which was according to Jesus Manzano was an organized doping squad. Manzano claimed that riders essentially had no choice: dope or get fired. That was a long time ago, Valverde left the team years ago, and there have been no irregularities in his bio-passport or positive tests since then. What is the point of suspending him now? Why are his current victories illegitimate when the alleged doping occurred over six years ago? A retroactive suspension with victories stricken from the record in 2004-2006 would seem reasonable, but taking away his 2009-2010 victories for doping in 2004 has no logic whatsoever. Suspensions have to take place when the doping takes place, otherwise they are meaningless.

Are you serious? Every defense team in the world would drag cases out for years. Absurd.
 
hektoren said:
Like it or not, but "The nature of evolution", the survival of the fittest, and the morality you apparently believe is a given, natural result of evolution, is often curbed by legislation. Like it or not, but that legislation is also a result of evolutionary processes. Please don't confuse evolutionary processes with morality.

No confusion here. There is no morality in the natural world. Morality is a subjective societal issue. When everyone in your social network dopes and accepts it as a fact of life, it becomes the moral standard.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
No confusion here. There is no morality in the natural world. Morality is a subjective societal issue.

not entirely true, some of the morality comes from an evolutionary development, due to which behaviour was most beneficial for the survival of the community this behaviour became seen as the preferred behaviour, this then transmorphed into a moral rule. For example monogamy, moral rules against theft and murder and so on.

(completely not talking about doping, but about morality in itself)
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
When everyone in your social network dopes and accepts it as a fact of life, it becomes the moral standard.

Which is exactly, exactly where you obviously lose your moral compass. I'd be only too happy and tickled to continue this debate, but as I'm reportedly the reason for several persons' headache, I'm restricted to stating the obvious and conveying this message: YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!!!!Valverde is dirty and deserves being neutered!!His genome passed onto the next generation of cyclists should be strangled at birth!
 
hektoren said:
Which is exactly, exactly where you obviously lose your moral compass. I'd be only too happy and tickled to continue this debate, but as I'm reportedly the reason for several persons' headache, I'm restricted to stating the obvious and conveying this message: YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!!!!Valverde is dirty and deserves being neutered!!His genome passed onto the next generation of cyclists should be strangled at birth!

But you're wrong in thinking that Valverde is in any way different from your favorite pro cyclist whoever that may be. But I do understand that every fantasy needs a villain.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
But you're wrong in thinking that Valverde is in any way different from your favorite pro cyclist whoever that may be. But I do understand that every fantasy needs a villain.

My favorite pro cyclist doesn't dope. Yours did. Admit defeat.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
patricknd said:
your favorite must be dead

No, but I'll admit that he has achilles tendonitis. Mention EBH in connection with doping and I'll be lurking in the shadows where you live. First, I'll bust your kneecaps, on second offence you'll be begging for mercy. :D
 
Love the Scenery said:
To go after the riders in a situation like this--and six years after the events, at that--is just ridiculous.

Hmmmm, you do not appear to have replied to the reply I made, and rather are just reacting to one part of another post. It is really Valv's own fault it is 6 years post ... his team did such a good job of delaying matters. Hey, he's been winning and earning $, so why are you so sad? Have some lavender tea or some essential oils or something and lighten the f*ck up :D

Love the Scenery said:
CONI has it completely backwards, as do you.

Actually, they do not, and it looks like the Spanish courts just might be in agreement! :p
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
I trashed V-Piti in everyway I knew how to. I must admit he is one of the greatest riders competing at this time. Let him ride.. my life is so bleak at this point... I need the entertainment to continue to breath...
 
hektoren said:
My favorite pro cyclist doesn't dope. Yours did. Admit defeat.

My favorite is Merckx, an yes I am old enough to have seen him race. Of those active riders today, it would have to be Jens Voigt. I have no illusions that either of them did what ever they had to do to be, and remain competitive. I have no problem with that. Just like I have no problem with Boasson Hagen doing it.

Are you really so naive that the possibility eludes you? Or are you just so smitten that you choose not to see?
 

TRENDING THREADS