Pedro Delgado has rightfully noted the excessive length of time for the UCI to act on Valverde's case. He also felt their is damage to his generation's credibility. Is this a nationalistic media attitude or generally shared? I'm not sure what to make of it.
-
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Delgado decries the damage; his Legacy & Valverde
- Thread starter Oldman
- Start date
Sorry; here's the link to the story:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/delgado-on-the-defensive-over-valverde
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/delgado-on-the-defensive-over-valverde
well guys, start talking about omerta and so on, Delgado is in his right to defend Valverde as Gutierrez is too. Lots of riders do, (maybe I have to exclude here some riders... oh! almost all of them are English spoken...)
Some of you might be allergic to Spanish culture of cycling but let me tell you I'm highly allergical towards this English spoken hegemony in cycling...
Some of you might be allergic to Spanish culture of cycling but let me tell you I'm highly allergical towards this English spoken hegemony in cycling...
Aguirre said:
Aguirre, I agree with you regarding the hypocrisy over the way English speaking riders get preferential treatment over doping. It is clearly wrong and patently unfair.
However, two wrongs don't make a right.
All Delgardo, Guti etc are doing are adding credence to the OP cover up conspiracy theory.
It's Valv.Piti's own fault that the case dragged on. He dragged it.
Delgado is saying that doping should be just ignored. Let the riders get on with it.
Delgado is saying that doping should be just ignored. Let the riders get on with it.
Aguirre said:
English spoken hegemony in cycling???There must be in the media, because as for "pedalling" cycling and victories it is still primarily non anglo: Spanish are dominating GT (3 different guys in the last 4 TdF), and Spanish, Italian, Belgian, Russians, Swiss (among others) are basically taking also almost everything else.
I think sadly many Spanish riders such as Delgado or Dominguez are completely irresponsible regarding the fight against doping, but it is obviously too easy for the anglo side of cyling to generalize and blame Spain.
Mellow Velo said:
Patty wants to globalise cycling. Spanish-speaking riders are no worry because the sport is already popular in South America and other Spanish-speaking countries. Stepping up in Anglophone territories is a big pet project of his though, so we can't sacrifice the riders that are key to that.
OP has been covered up and people have pretended it doesn't exist even while exiling a number of otherwise highly talented and desirable riders to small Portuguese continental teams. But the problem with the Valverde case, at least my problem with the Valverde case, is that Valverde has been mercilessly hunted down over an extended period, cornered and finally ensnared and everybody else involved has just been allowed to stand and watch. It's incredibly totemic to ban Valverde because he's the one at the top of the sport. But why not pursue Fränk Schleck for the same reason? Basically, Valverde's success was seen as an obstacle to Patty because he was a symbol of the 'old' cycling
rolleyes, the corrupt cycling. The other Puerto riders were mostly seen as irrelevances, they wouldn't be riding the top level races that Patty was trying to market, so they can continue to ride unabated while Valverde had to go.I suspect that Delgado and Gutiérrez's points about the injustice are more about how Valverde has been singled out and hounded for years than his right to dope.
Libertine Seguros said:Patty wants to globalise cycling. Spanish-speaking riders are no worry because the sport is already popular in South America and other Spanish-speaking countries. Stepping up in Anglophone territories is a big pet project of his though, so we can't sacrifice the riders that are key to that.
OP has been covered up and people have pretended it doesn't exist even while exiling a number of otherwise highly talented and desirable riders to small Portuguese continental teams. But the problem with the Valverde case, at least my problem with the Valverde case, is that Valverde has been mercilessly hunted down over an extended period, cornered and finally ensnared and everybody else involved has just been allowed to stand and watch. It's incredibly totemic to ban Valverde because he's the one at the top of the sport. But why not pursue Fränk Schleck for the same reason? Basically, Valverde's success was seen as an obstacle to Patty because he was a symbol of the 'old' cycling
I suspect that Delgado and Gutiérrez's points about the injustice are more about how Valverde has been singled out and hounded for years than his right to dope.
If that's the case then I think they have a point.
Oldman said:
well, talk about Valv.Piti and his laywers trying to slow everything down! ridicolous. if he had acted like scarponi and basso and confessed "that he intendend to dope" [ridicolous, yes, but...], there would not have been the "excessive length of time".
what's really absurd is that they found blood of a rider that can be 100% identified as Valverde's blood and has clear EPO traces and these poor guys defend him mentinoning all the time "he has not tested positive once" [does that ring a bell btw?]. I think the state of cycling is even worse than I thought. some people still don't get it.
Aguirre said:
don't try to divert from facts by hitlerising the issue through using nationalities. this is not about nationalities. it is for the sad facts that i have a problem with Valv.Piti and operacion puerto. i admire spain and its language, culture, food and enthusiam for cycling, i had a girlfriend in madrid for a few years. i would have the same stance if valv.piti were italian, swiss, german, australian or whatever nationality. also luxembourg and other countries have not acted properly with regard to puerto.
craig1985 said:
Do they, though?
The whole doping game is a lottery. Everybody who gets caught is either unlucky, or just plain sloppy.
Given that Valverde has gotten his ban in a slightly different manner, but how is his ban more unjust than those of Basso, Scarponi, Jackshe etc?
CONI only did to Valverde, what they did to secure Basso's sanction. Nothing more.
I don't call it hounding, just proper procedure.
If the Spanish legal system hadn't been so reticent about testing the samples, for whatever reason, this would have been over long ago.
la.margna said:
I just want to add a +1000 here. It's not like every Anglo shares Paddy's stupid views, just like not every Spaniard share's Pedro's. I cannot think of any one country that has not had it's share of dopers. Sure, there was OP. But there has also been BALCO. There are differences in law and culture that mean the cases need to be addressed in different ways. Just saying that while I am glad Valv is finally suspended, it is because the glove did fit
, not because of his nationality.la.margna said:
It's all about the money. The U.S. is always a market that any business wants to crack. The biggest corporations, (once upon a time) large disposable incomes etc. Don't bite the hand that (potentially) feeds you.
Libertine Seguros said:
Mellow Velo said:
I have to agree with Mellow, I wouldn't call it merciless hounding - if Valverde hadn't kept fighting it, he would have gone down years ago. What are the UCI supposed to do, throw out any case that the rider manages to stonewall for a year or two?
Regarding everybody else being allowed to stand and watch, in the real world you can only pursue the cases you think you can win. Do we all think Fränk Schleck is crooked? Of course, but the damning evidence of a blood bag just isn't available, so how are they supposed to catch him?
Your argument essentially amounts to "we can't catch all of them, so punishing those we do catch is unfair". Imagine if your local criminal courts behaved the same way? Valverde, unlike most riders accused of doping, got the benefit of _years_ of riding under the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". And now that he is definitively proven guilty, how can he still be expected to treated as if he were innocent all along?
I simply can't agree with that - Valverde did at least plan to blood dope, and did use epo. For Delgado and Gutierrez to defend him without even acknowledging these facts overtly is...staggering...delusional...pathetic...contemptible...pitiful.
I do have to pick a bone however with the continual assertions that the Spanish legal system should have prosecuted these riders. At the time that the OP doping was going on it was not a criminal offense in Spain, and the legislation banning it could not be made retrospective under the Spanish criminal code. People are forgetting that the OP investigation was started and aggressively pursued by the Spanish authorities until they were shut down by the fact that the investigation itself was unconstitutional.
It was only in 2009 that he was actually sanctioned in any way. He has filibustered it masterfully for a year, but let's not pretend - as plenty of people here have done in the past, myself included - that Valverde has delayed it by four years.dsut4392 said:
But my point is not with reference to the people they couldn't catch. There is more than enough evidence out there to damn riders like Ángel Vicioso, and David Bernabéu should be serving a life ban right now. There was the blood bag with Valverde, but it was only in 2008 that CONI got the DNA sample, then a while after that that they got the blood bag. Is there any evidence of the UCI pressuring RFEC to reopen proceedings against Zaballa, Blanco and the others?
He shouldn't. He'll continue to maintain his innocence, of course, but he shouldn't be treated as if he were innocent. The problem with the case is not that Alejandro Valverde has been found guilty, or even that he's been prosecuted. It's that there doesn't appear to be the motivation or desire to even attempt to prosecute several others who are just as guilty. Yes, you select your cases on the basis of the ones you think you can win, but are you seriously telling me that there are no other Puerto cases the UCI thinks it can win? Hogwash. They wanted rid of Valverde because he's still at the pinnacle of the sport, ergo he's a problem to them. They couldn't care less that half of the top 10 of the Volta a Portugal was made up of ex-Puerto names, because that's not one of the races they're trying to market worldwide, so they aren't interested in pursuing them.
Also, CONI could have made this a lot easier by presenting the UCI with the evidence they based their decision to ban Valverde on.
Aguirre said:
Allergic to Spanish culture of cycling? Is that the culture where judges actively block investigations, or the one where, as one rider put it, you can drive around with epo on your dashboard and no one cares?
Do you think people are talking about Delgado just because he's Spanish, or could it be because he's a former Tour winner who once tested positive for probenicide?
Libertine Seguros said:
This is my sense of UCI's response to nearly everyone that tests, save for the glaringly suspect-like Rasmussen. The Omerta aspect of it as represented by Delgado does seem generational, not National. It is easier for him to have that opinion within the confines of his own country, however; much like the cloying and continued support for LA in the US but differentiated by the size and voracity of the US Media. That's a situation where the Anglophone's will eat their young, don't you think?
Animal said:
Delgado is no pussy or snake oil salesman. He has the balls to say leave the dopers alone. He didn't. Read the translation. He asked why did the UCI not go after Valverde 4 years ago. The Spanish couldn't, because their law did not allow them to. No amount of preening and half truths by ardent anti-dopers on forums can change that fact. You cannot apply law retrospectively and you should never be allowed to. Ever. But that skipped your mind did it not?
Delgado's point was clear. If justice was served, why did the UCI allow Alejandro to race for 4 years. Don't answer that...you brain won't have a logical answer. Why change their tune two years and for this one rider alone? Why not hire Vrijman to do another botch job to conclude there is no case to answer? Valverde sure as hell wins more often than Lance does. More people watch him race and win than they do Lance? Don't think too hard champ for answers to these very obvious observations...your brain might explode. Libertine has it figured out. Delgado and Gutierrez were not upholding Omerta or being doping apologists. Go back and reads what he said.
Aguirre said:
I see no pattern of national discrimination. Basso's case is similar to Valverde - blame CONI for both. Ullrich was caught without a positive test.
As for the English-speaking cases, Millar was caught outside of doping controls. UCI certainly went the extra mile to make sure Landis did not get away with on appeal. After Hamilton's first positive, when the B sample was mysteriously destroyed, UCI pursued him on next possible opportunity.
The Armstrong case is an exception. But I would not put this down on language or culture - there is some evidence that it's likely due to straight-forward corruption.
Libertine Seguros said:
yeah and he is pointing fingers at others.....No
this is another BS piece of whinging from riders (and friends of those) who get caught and feel hard done by while all the rest ride on free, cause they didn't get caught...
valverde dragged it out and made a lot of money while it went through a lengthy process....pathetic whinging....
if delgado wants to do something positive he should be calling for OP to be re-investigated and applauding CONI for catching a cheater....
Libertine Seguros said:
To be fair, UCI is unable to go after further OP cases as they lack the tools and jurisdiction. They were handed the Valverde case thanks to CONI - and had to resolve the conflict between ban in Italy but not worldwide. Valverde took the gamble that he could defeat the worldwide ban threat - but lost.
Benotti... This isn't a black-and-white case, you know. I know in the eyes of many, doping is black and white. But obviously it isn't, as otherwise there would have been no opportunity for Valverde to drag it out. And it wouldn't have taken nearly three years to charge him.
The results that have been taken from him are ones that CAS states it sees no reason to question the legitimacy of. The punishment therefore makes little sense to many.
The other reason this isn't black and white is that there is an obvious double-standard being employed in cycling. The UCI cries foul about RFEC 'protecting' Valverde, yet itself protects a number of marketable dopers. There were a number of factors in this case that prevent it from being a simple 'was he doped? yes. Ban him' case, as perhaps it should have been. Not all of that is Valverde's fault.
Why are some riders protected and others not? And then, given that no national federation but the Italians acknowledged the CONI ban how do you make a fair punishment? How do you strip results from a rider who the UCI have been targeting for years since they want rid of him, and who has never tested positive? You have the evidence that he's been doping, but when?
Doping perhaps should be a black-and-white issue. But there's so much inconsistency, there are so many people looking to evade the law on technicalities (see Landis, Floyd, Kashechkin, Andriy, and Schumacher, Stefan), riders being protected by institutionalised programmes, corruption on the national and international level, that applying the letter of the law fairly is nigh on impossible. McQuaid is happy to draw a line under Puerto now that the only rider still out there winning races who is nailable on Puerto evidence is banned; he doesn't care about applying the rules to the others, so why shouldn't Valverde cry foul? He's about as innocent as Ted Bundy, but he should still have the right to call out corruption of justice. CONI and CAS come out of this affair alright, but the UCI and RFEC look pretty poor.
The results that have been taken from him are ones that CAS states it sees no reason to question the legitimacy of. The punishment therefore makes little sense to many.
The other reason this isn't black and white is that there is an obvious double-standard being employed in cycling. The UCI cries foul about RFEC 'protecting' Valverde, yet itself protects a number of marketable dopers. There were a number of factors in this case that prevent it from being a simple 'was he doped? yes. Ban him' case, as perhaps it should have been. Not all of that is Valverde's fault.
Why are some riders protected and others not? And then, given that no national federation but the Italians acknowledged the CONI ban how do you make a fair punishment? How do you strip results from a rider who the UCI have been targeting for years since they want rid of him, and who has never tested positive? You have the evidence that he's been doping, but when?
Doping perhaps should be a black-and-white issue. But there's so much inconsistency, there are so many people looking to evade the law on technicalities (see Landis, Floyd, Kashechkin, Andriy, and Schumacher, Stefan), riders being protected by institutionalised programmes, corruption on the national and international level, that applying the letter of the law fairly is nigh on impossible. McQuaid is happy to draw a line under Puerto now that the only rider still out there winning races who is nailable on Puerto evidence is banned; he doesn't care about applying the rules to the others, so why shouldn't Valverde cry foul? He's about as innocent as Ted Bundy, but he should still have the right to call out corruption of justice. CONI and CAS come out of this affair alright, but the UCI and RFEC look pretty poor.
Kennf1 said:
Anyone who thinks this is the case might file a suit against the judge for breach of duty of law. The hard facts are that nobody has done that. Why? Because the judge is acting within the law. It is the same law that bans employers from accessing the medical records of their employees. It has nothing to do with judges blocking investigations and nothing to do with a particular view of a specific sport.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 982
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram