Exiting racers who dope

[Chuffy]

Yup - Sella was the same kind of rider he'd always been, but suddenly he was a lot BETTER. And now, since he's come back, he's the same kind of rider he always was pre-2008.

And Valverde passing doping tests while having blood bags with Fuentes is irrelevant to the point that he has been singled out as a bad guy for trying to avoid a suspension, while those who've been banned have not met with the same hostility. These guys are then martyred as if they voluntarily owned up, whereas if they'd been presented with a case as complicated as Valverde's they'd have behaved the same way. Even Sella didn't voluntarily own up - he was caught, and then told them everything afterward.

I'm slightly confused. His blood was in Fuentes' lab. DNA tests confirmed this. Where is the complication?

Valverde gets it in the neck because he spent so long protesting his innocence, has never accepted his guilt and his case took way, waaaaaayyyy longer to sort out than was ever justified. Lucky him, he gets to be the poster boy for the dope-haterz. Tough, them's the breaks piti boy.

If I'm wrong about some of this then I'm happy to accept a correction, but I still have no sympathy if Valverde gets more grief than Vino et al.

 

[Chuffy]

I'm with you on this. Well said.

I'm not. B.S...

 

[roundabout]

I don't know. I'm not sure that any doper attempting to cheat the system like Valverde would have got the same response.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I'm slightly confused. His blood was in Fuentes' lab. DNA tests confirmed this. Where is the complication?

Valverde gets it in the neck because he spent so long protesting his innocence, has never accepted his guilt and his case took way, waaaaaayyyy longer to sort out than was ever justified. Lucky him, he gets to be the poster boy for the dope-haterz. Tough, them's the breaks piti boy.

If I'm wrong about some of this then I'm happy to accept a correction, but I still have no sympathy if Valverde gets more grief than Vino et al.

The complication wasn't Valverde's fault, it was all to do with the Spanish legal system and who had jurisdiction over him.

He took advantage of this, as well he might.

If you hate all dopers, I can see why you would have your panties in a twist about Valverde.

But if you're one of those who forgives or is happy to see the likes of Vino and Riccò back cos 'they've served their time', do you honestly think that, given a situation like Valverde's where they could continue to ride without taking a ban, they would have happily sat out two years? No way. Valverde just played the system, and it turned out the system was corrupt and allowed him to play it. Why blame him above everybody else? That case was mismanaged and mishandled on all levels by all people. Why shouldn't Valverde try to keep earning while he can? And as for not admitting anything... does the name Ivan Basso mean anything to you? He protested his innocence on the 'intention to' grounds. Ridiculous - you win the Giro by 10 minutes THEN decide you might think about doping?

The public are as fickle as the UCI. Group think works. People like Vino and Basso are happily esconced in the ProTour péloton, and Valverde was happily riding there. Fränk Schleck hasn't even been pursued, and some riders like Ángel Vicioso and Rubén Plaza have bounced around levels without anybody taking issue. Yet riders like Paco Mancebo won't be touched by a top team ever again. Michael Rasmussen's name is mud, and Roberto Heras hasn't been seen since 2005. Andrey Kashechkin and Patrik Sinkewitz sat out over half the season before they got teams. As fans we think this is ridiculous, but then as fans we also reserve the right to be very arbitrary in the way we treat dopers too. Wheee, look ma, we're hypocritising!

 

[Polish]

Lol Fausto.
I know your list doesnt specify how much one doped, but compared to most people on your list Coppis doping programme today would be the equivalent of having a red bull before the race.

Back in Fausto's day it was common to have stages longer than 250km. The 1949 TdF had 10 stages longer than 250km, 2 over 300km. (It has been over ten years since a single TdF stage has been that long fyi....)

Bikes were Steel. Gearing was high. Roads were crappy.

I would argue that the amphetamines Fausto used were every bit as helpful as the current doping techniques in the current era. Maybe even more so.

 

[c&cfan]

I don't care about chess or rugby, and I don't care much about football either. I'm a cycling fan, and I want my sport to be clean.

Clen is banned, therefore it's doping. If you don't like it, this isn't the forum for you.

clen is banned, therefore it's doping--------------wrong. it is only doping when it makes a cyclist perform better. clen being baned in that amount is just stupid. if you take a pill to asma (contador has or had it) you will be considered a drug cheat. how fair is that?how clean is that? that is like saying, terrorists are muslins, why no one is using atomic bombs to kill all the muslins?

you cant call a doper to contador based on that amount of clen because it isnt doping, therefore, he is clean.

 

[rzombie1988]

I don't really have a good answer either way to this issue. I like Ricco and Vinokourov though. I either like or hate a rider regardless if they dope or not. If their excuse is really stupid though, I'll probably hate them more (like Contador). I really just want to see exciting races.

 

[Chuffy]

The complication wasn't Valverde's fault, it was all to do with the Spanish legal system and who had jurisdiction over him.

He took advantage of this, as well he might.
*snip*

Sorry, hate long quotes.

I'd agree with you, up to a point. The thing is, it's not about Valverde himself, per se. His case has become a symbol of what is screwed up about doping enforcement, hence he gets the grief, he's the lightning rod. At least Ricco, Vino were busted and processed quickly. Basso is as big a bull-sheeter as Valverde but again, his case was sorted and dealt with way quicker.

Much as I liked Vino (hell, even Ricco, as a rider and comedy villain) I'd willingly sacrifice them if it helped prevent other riders doping. They've served their time but I certainly wouldn't go as far as 'welcoming' them back.

 

[Altitude]

clen is banned, therefore it's doping--------------wrong. it is only doping when it makes a cyclist perform better. clen being baned in that amount is just stupid. if you take a pill to asma (contador has or had it) you will be considered a drug cheat. how fair is that?how clean is that? that is like saying, terrorists are muslins, why no one is using atomic bombs to kill all the muslins?

you cant call a doper to contador based on that amount of clen because it isnt doping, therefore, he is clean.

Whether you like it or not he will be sanctioned for doping, as he should be. Get over it

 

[c&cfan]

as he should be? why? his performance wasnt better because of that amount of clen that no one has proof that it was taken consciously. in fact, he has proof of the oposite of that.

 

[Mambo95]

as he should be? why? his performance wasnt better because of that amount of clen that no one has proof that it was taken consciously. in fact, he has proof of the oposite of that.

Two words for you - Strict Liability

Even if he could prove that it came from beef, he'd probably still get a reduced ban.

(You can bring up the table tennis player if you want, but this is cycling. WADA don't watch table tennis).

 

[c&cfan]

Two words for you - Strict Liability

Even if he could prove that it came from beef, he'd probably still get a reduced ban.

(You can bring up the table tennis player if you want, but this is cycling. WADA don't watch table tennis).

so they have to make mistakes until when??

 

[Mambo95]

so they have to make mistakes until when??

Who's made mistakes?

 

[Chuffy]

Who's made mistakes?

Everyone responding to contador&clenfan. Including me. D'oh!

 

[hrotha]

Who's made mistakes?

Contador's doctor, probably.

 

[Mambo95]

Everyone responding to contador&clenfan. Including me. D'oh!

True. But I've been drinking. Is that enough to get me off a ban?

 

[c&cfan]

everyone that is excluding a cyclist with 0.000000005g of clen (since it isnt doping) and other similar cases like the chinese guy etc...

it's cancellara and cavendish fan BTW and no one has to respond to my posts.

 

[Mambo95]

everyone that is excluding a cyclist with 0.000000005g of clen (since it isnt doping) and other similar cases like the chinese guy etc...

I repeat. Strict Liability. There's a drug in his system that shouldn't be. Unless he can prove (and the onus of proof is on him) that it came from an innocent source, then he should get a 2 year ban. If he can prove the beef stuff, he should still get 1 year (according to precedent).

The ping-pong player got lucky due to a (probably) naive federation. Cycling are a bit smarter and WADA are watching carefully.

 

[Chuffy]

True. But I've been drinking. Is that enough to get me off a ban?

If it's good enough for me then it's good enough for you.

 

[Altitude]

Everyone responding to contador&clenfan. Including me. D'oh!

hehe, contador&clenfan-- good one

 

[Mshort]

I repeat. Strict Liability. There's a drug in his system that shouldn't be. Unless he can prove (and the onus of proof is on him) that it came from an innocent source, then he should get a 2 year ban. If he can prove the beef stuff, he should still get 1 year (according to precedent).

The ping-pong player got lucky due to a (probably) naive federation. Cycling are a bit smarter and WADA are watching carefully.

Must say, beautifully and concisely put. Finally a sensible conclusion to what will happen in the Contador story. Anyone who thinks differently has no idea how arbitrated matters work.

The one addition I would make, is that the burden of proof Contador needs to satisfy is the civil standard of 'on the balance of probabilities' and not the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Contador must satisfy the presiding tribunal that it was more likely than not that the reading was as a result of eating contaminated meat.

Think to yourself, how would someone provide evidence to that effect? An expert report is not sufficiently probative.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

Some aren't bothered as much by doping, period. If a rider makes a race more interesting then of course you want him back in the sport. If you're a fan of a rider, why should you let what you already suspected change your opinion of him? A lot of people hate Ricco, but its mostly for the same reason that a lot of people hate Cavendish-- because he's good and he's arrogant. Not because he took EPO.Those who truly believe that cycling can become a "clean" sport (w/e your definition of that is) are delusional. Besides, do you really want to see winning times of 45+ min up Alpe D'huez?

No, I just hate him because he dope(d)(s).
And I wouldn't mind 45 min + on Alpe D'huez if that means clean cycling.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

For me, there is no such thing as a doper that is exciting. Yes I loved wathcing Di Luca attack in the Giro, but when he went positive, it was hollowing. I'd rather watch riders be less aggressive than watch a doper blow a race appart. If they weren't doping they wouldn't be able to blow great riders off their wheel.

And no, I'm not naive enough to believe that doping isn't more wide spread than just those who are caught, but the more supporters, sponsors, and importantly managers turn their back on dopers, the cleaner the sport will become. The managers and teams who look closely at a riders history and their passport - beyond what tests as positive on the passport, but actually look at what the passport may be telling them - should be rewarded with entries to the big races.

If that means that a team of 'lesser' riders like Skil-Shimano (and I'm making a big assumption that Skil's management are true to their talk about looking past dopers) gets selected for the Tour over Vacensoleil who saw no problem signing Ricco and Mosquera, then I'm all for it. Soon the managers will get the message when their sponsor starts asking why they aren't getting selected for the tour. Money talks - and if getting punted from the big races is what it takes to get managers to pull their heads out of their ar$es, then so be it.

Very well said!

 

[JPM London]

...And would some think that doping is what allowed these guys to be as aggressive as they were/are?

Causality is always difficult to ascertain. I think you could make the opposite case: An aggressive rider type could be psychologically more prone to choose doping. Obviously once a juice drinker it def wouldn't lower their potential for riding aggressively and we also know certain drugs make you more aggressive anywho...

Those who truly believe that cycling can become a "clean" sport (w/e your definition of that is) are delusional. Besides, do you really want to see winning times of 45+ min up Alpe D'huez?

Who's saying we would see wining times of +45? Were the pre-epo times that high? anyway, I wouldn't mind at all. What I want is the true, unadulterated suffering - like sometimes when they have to get off and drag their bikes, like when they turn around on the mountains and yell "you are all murderers!". I like the "last man standing wins" idea. I liked the Stetina interview here on CN where he says the level of the riders is so even that it's all a game of breaking the majority down so the winners can fight in the end - that everybody is being pushed to inches within their breaking point.

I believe cycling is cleaning up - I hope it continues. Maybe I'm delusional, but I wouldn't watch if I didn't think so. I'm not an idiot, though, and even if a get disappointed if a rider I like gets popped it does not mean I lose faith in cycling as such - I realise it will never be 100% clean.

My problem with the dope fight at the moment is the lottery feel of it. You know some guys are doing it and you know some gets popped and some don't. You also feel sometimes as if people get hard done by based on evidence that's dubious at least. Sometimes it feels like they might as well draw lots before or after the race to determine who's hung out as a doper - and while they're at it they might as well draw lots on the length of the ban...

Valverde's clearly a doper adn should be punished as he finally was, but it's like he and his Spanish co-riders are wrong when they say it's not fair so many other OP'ers are walking (well, riding as it were)...

Its not a question of attacking riding. The point is more that everyone dopes. People hate Vino because they think he is a doper, while the people that were and are beating him - Cuddles, Menchov, Schleck etc are all squeeky clean.

But i and others have seen plenty of evidence to suggest that the peloton as a whole is dirty. I wont get on Vinos, or Di Lucas or Sellas or Valverdes back for doping, because they got punished while plenty of other dirty riders didnt.

Its not a question of attacking riding excusing doping. If you take the point of view that they all dope, then you end up cheering for the riders that make races interesting.

I agree to some point - I don't believe they all dope though. Problem is - well, as noted above...

Lol Fausto.
I know your list doesnt specify how much one doped, but compared to most people on your list Coppis doping programme today would be the equivalent of having a red bull before the race.

Well, I guess we can agree there wasn't any EPO in his drink, but that's still one mother of a Red Bull I would think twice about before drinking...
Actually, I think I'd pass...

guys... stop with this.

... Blah-de-blah... Yikkety-yakkety... Overt anger and resentment... Bull, trash and mud...

...

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss/Other CC,

I am not sure you will ever see this message, as your posts are clearly all auto written by a piece of software.

However I must admit I'm a bit concerned about the integrity of this softwre as it seems somewhat dysfunctional and it clearly contains an enormous amount of anger code. Also it seems quite unable to separate fact from fiction and is clearly lacking in ability to create meaningful sentences.

Do you think it would be possible to run a virus scan on your software before using it for more spam?

Thank you in advance...

... that is like saying, terrorists are muslins, why no one is using atomic bombs to kill all the muslins?

Why would you want to drop an A-bomb on a piece of cloth used to make tea infusions?

 

[Altitude]

Who's saying we would see wining times of +45? Were the pre-epo times that high? anyway, I wouldn't mind at all. What I want is the true, unadulterated suffering - like sometimes when they have to get off and drag their bikes, like when they turn around on the mountains and yell "you are all murderers!". I like the "last man standing wins" idea. I liked the Stetina interview here on CN where he says the level of the riders is so even that it's all a game of breaking the majority down so the winners can fight in the end - that everybody is being pushed to inches within their breaking point.

I believe cycling is cleaning up - I hope it continues. Maybe I'm delusional, but I wouldn't watch if I didn't think so. I'm not an idiot, though, and even if a get disappointed if a rider I like gets popped it does not mean I lose faith in cycling as such - I realise it will never be 100% clean.

My problem with the dope fight at the moment is the lottery feel of it. You know some guys are doing it and you know some gets popped and some don't. You also feel sometimes as if people get hard done by based on evidence that's dubious at least. Sometimes it feels like they might as well draw lots before or after the race to determine who's hung out as a doper - and while they're at it they might as well draw lots on the length of the ban...

Yeah but was the sport "clean" before EPO? This goes back to "w/e your definition of that is", as I said in my original post. I'll keep watching regardless of how much doping is going on, but I do believe that cycling is cleaner than it was 5, 10, 20 years ago (just in case you were wondering).