Teams & Riders He's coming home!!!! Alejandro Valverde comeback thread.

[Libertine Seguros]

I like the Armstrong reference, cause both are pretty good at sustaining lies till it becomes totally ridiculous (and beyond).

Not trying to **** anyone off here, but Valverde lost me when he kept lying despite the ironclad evidence against him.

The ironclad evidence against him was also acquired by dubious means and applied in weird fashion. As long as they kept giving him opportunities to keep riding and pocketing earnings to keep him going through the ban, he'd have been a fool not to take them.

The ban was deserved, but it's not his fault his case was bungled badly by more or less everybody that touched it.

 

[theyoungest]

I like the Armstrong reference, cause both are pretty good at sustaining lies till it becomes totally ridiculous (and beyond).

Not trying to **** anyone off here, but Valverde lost me when he kept lying despite the ironclad evidence against him.

Your feigned objectivity isn't really working, I'm afraid...

That's just the way things work in the dopers' world, and more specifically in the lawyers of dopers' world.

 

[boomcie]

The ironclad evidence against him was also acquired by dubious means and applied in weird fashion. As long as they kept giving him opportunities to keep riding and pocketing earnings to keep him going through the ban, he'd have been a fool not to take them.

The ban was deserved, but it's not his fault his case was bungled badly by more or less everybody that touched it.

Your feigned objectivity isn't really working, I'm afraid...

That's just the way things work in the dopers' world, and more specifically in the lawyers of dopers' world.

To both: sorry, I had no idea Valverde had admitted to his mistakes...

Clearly it is my point that this guy is a shameless and inveterate liar.
Like Virenque but even worse.

I don't give a sh*t if anyone lies about their drug use, but when irrefutable evidence is presented, one should stop making a fool out of himself. Especially when already sentenced...

@the youngest: my feigned objectivity is simple subjectivity. What's your point?

 

[skidmark]

I like the Armstrong reference, cause both are pretty good at sustaining lies till it becomes totally ridiculous (and beyond).

Not trying to **** anyone off here, but Valverde lost me when he kept lying despite the ironclad evidence against him.

I dunno. Ricco, for example, lied (and is still lying), but from my memory Valverde mostly just disputed the procedural methods used against him. In all his legalistic case, I think he deftly skirted the issue so that he often didn't definitively say 'I didn't dope', just that the procedures used against him weren't solid enough to suspend him. Which I think was true; if you put 2+2 together, of course he was doping, but the procedure by which they caught him was unorthodox and possibly on shaky legal ground, as evidenced by the fact that it took over 2 years between when the UCI tried to suspend him (before the 2007 Worlds) and when he actually got suspended definitively.

Either way, I'd certainly do the same if I were him - if I'm the best rider of a generation and all I want to do is win bike races, I'm going to try to do what I can to keep doing that. So I don't really connect with the idea that he's 'lost' people because of that.

 

[ElChingon]

Surprised no one else has started this one. Only abiding

The thread dedicated to Valverde's return, predictions, expectations, well wishing, goals, form, mental state, latest headlines, photo-ops, and of course Wins!

Those seeking to hate, troll, go tangential to another rider even comparisons, BUZZ OFF!

Can I have my thread extracted from Hitch's, which as always heads down the toilet for some odd reason. I like my thread constraints which keep it narrowed down and to the point. This wild wide flame war is pretty pathetic...

 

[The Hitch]

You can't stop people from voicing a negative opinion on a subject just because its your own thread.

So the "no hate please", constraint wont work and everything else is already being discussed here. Because this thread is already

dedicated to Valverde's return, predictions, expectations, well wishing, goals, form, mental state, latest headlines, photo-ops, and of course Wins!

 

[The Hitch]

You can't stop people from voicing a negative opinion on a subject just because its your own thread.

So the "no hate please", constraint wont work and everything else is already being discussed here. Because this thread is already

dedicated to Valverde's return, predictions, expectations, well wishing, goals, form, mental state, latest headlines, photo-ops, and of course Wins!

 

[El Pistolero]

Can I have my thread extracted from Hitch's, which as always heads down the toilet for some odd reason. I like my thread constraints which keep it narrowed down and to the point. This wild wide flame war is pretty pathetic...

Flame war? Where?

 

[roundabout]

The procedures to suspend him were absolutely solid. The game should have been over on 11th of May 2009. Instead Piti and his RFEC accomplices decided to keep dragging their little feet.

Words like shaky, dubious and weird are nothing more than pathetic attempts to paint an obvious cheater in a better light.

Where's the puke smiley because it describes best what I am feeling having read the last page of this thread.

 

[Night Rider]

Welcome back, Alejandro. Not my favorite rider but he's done his time so let's get on with it. At least he will liven a few races up.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The procedures to suspend him were absolutely solid. The game should have been over on 11th of May 2009. Instead Piti and his RFEC accomplices decided to keep dragging their little feet.

Words like shaky, dubious and weird are nothing more than pathetic attempts to paint an obvious cheater in a better light.

Where's the puke smiley because it describes best what I am feeling having read the last page of this thread.

Please then tell me why the UCI were still waiting for CONI to present the evidence that they based their ban on several months later.

Even then, the question was over how CONI obtained the sample for comparison by potential deceit, OR how they used the sample obtained after the Prato Nervoso stage for means other than the original accepted intended purpose. Then the question was, did CONI have the authority to ban Valverde? Yes, in Italy. But worldwide? That's what the argument was. The UCI wanted him banned, and they DO have the authority to ban him, but they didn't have access to the data the ban was based on.

It's not an open-and-shut case, otherwise it wouldn't have taken a year between CONI banning him and CAS confirming a (completely different) ban. He doped, he was caught, but he was caught in weird circumstances. He was banned, and indeed that was justice, but it would not have been real justice had he been banned due to dishonesty on the part of those banning him. Because of the weird case with the suspension you could argue it's still not real justice because he's essentially served extra ban time (due to the CONI ban) as well as having results taken away that CAS stated they had no reason for suspecting as ill-gotten. But it would be impossible to get true justice in the case because of all that had come before.

 

[El Pistolero]

Please then tell me why the UCI were still waiting for CONI to present the evidence that they based their ban on several months later.

Even then, the question was over how CONI obtained the sample for comparison by potential deceit, OR how they used the sample obtained after the Prato Nervoso stage for means other than the original accepted intended purpose. Then the question was, did CONI have the authority to ban Valverde? Yes, in Italy. But worldwide? That's what the argument was. The UCI wanted him banned, and they DO have the authority to ban him, but they didn't have access to the data the ban was based on.

It's not an open-and-shut case, otherwise it wouldn't have taken a year between CONI banning him and CAS confirming a (completely different) ban. He doped, he was caught, but he was caught in weird circumstances. He was banned, and indeed that was justice, but it would not have been real justice had he been banned due to dishonesty on the part of those banning him. Because of the weird case with the suspension you could argue it's still not real justice because he's essentially served extra ban time (due to the CONI ban) as well as having results taken away that CAS stated they had no reason for suspecting as ill-gotten. But it would be impossible to get true justice in the case because of all that had come before.

Valverde's results in 2010 should indeed not have been scrapped. He should be banned till after Romandie though

His ban for racing in Italy is indeed an extra punishment and in retrospect not a fair one(as he got his real 2 year ban now), but that will only make him more determent to kick *** in Italian races. And to be honest, I'm looking forward to see him race in Italy. Who knows, he might actually be really aggressive for once

As long as he doesn't win LBL this year I'm fine with him

And I really do mean it: anyone but Kolobtrash and Valverde in LBL.

 

[roundabout]

Like a true fan you're once again rehashing all the arguments (especially the dishonesty one) refuted by CAS and the Swiss Federal Court.

But let's go over them once more.

1. The case against Valverde had 2 parts, documentary and scientific. One should note that the Panel also accepted documentary evidence as convincing.

2.The issue of sample collection is covered in the decision that was subsequently confirmed in the Swiss Federal Court.

3.As you yourself state, part of the reason it took a year (11 months actually) between the CONI and second CAS decision being made public is because of delays in obtaining evidence. To tie in those procedural delays with the complexity of the case is rather misleading at best. Also, it took less than 7 months between Valverde's appeal of the CONI ban and the CAS hearing on that matter which in it's essence was based on the same set of facts as the scientific part of the UCI/WADA case. Edit: one should also note 19.5. c) of the arbitral award.

4.I disagree that the removal of the 2010 results is unjust. Valverde is known to have committed an anti-doping violation which is punishable by a 2-year ban which was rightly imposed in this particular case. As he has never failed a doping test in competition which is a more reasonable interpretation of the actual wording used by CAS ("there's no evidence that any of the results obtained by Mr Valverde since May 6 2006 until now was through doping infraction") it would be equally unjust to pick any 2 years of his particular career.

5. The argument of an extra punishment due to the CONI ban is similarly disingenuous as the rider in question was not known to participate in races in Italy for years prior to the CONI decision (only 1 race which was the WC). This shows the very limited effect of such sanction.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Like a true fan you're once again rehashing all the arguments (especially the dishonesty one) refuted by CAS and the Swiss Federal Court.

But let's go over them once more.

1. The case against Valverde had 2 parts, documentary and scientific. One should note that the Panel also accepted documentary evidence as convincing.

2.The issue of sample collection is covered in the decision that was subsequently confirmed in the Swiss Federal Court.

But at the time it had not been confirmed. Just because it was confirmed later does not mean that you can hold it against Valverde for contending it. CAS can only refute the arguments once they've actually held the hearing. That was what the issue was. You're complaining that he was still on the road, but of course he was. He thought he had a case. He did, but it wasn't strong enough and CAS ruled in favour of CONI. But while the case is being presented, he had every right to continue riding. It's not his fault the hearings were postponed, though certainly it played into his hands.

3.As you yourself state, part of the reason it took a year (11 months actually) between the CONI and second CAS decision being made public is because of delays in obtaining evidence. To tie in those procedural delays with the complexity of the case is rather misleading at best. Also, it took less than 7 months between Valverde's appeal of the CONI ban and the CAS hearing on that matter which in it's essence was based on the same set of facts as the scientific part of the UCI/WADA case.

But CONI still had to present their evidence for UCI/WADA in order for UCI/WADA to put their case together. This delayed the process as until that second case was heard, the only thing that was being contested was whether CONI had any right to sanction Valverde (and as you say, such a ban was limited in effectiveness given his reluctance to race in Italy anyway). The wheels of justice could have been faster had CONI's evidence been presented to the UCI/WADA sooner, as that was the judgement that was being waited upon to see if The Don was going to be banned worldwide.

The case was not open and shut, and the fact that it dragged on for so long was not solely the fault of Valverde. Sure, he contributed to it, but why wouldn't he? If they didn't keep offering up loopholes, his legal team wouldn't be able to find them. All I know is, if I end up in legal trouble and I'm guilty, I want his legal team. They're probably more affordable than OJ's.

4.I disagree that the removal of the 2010 results is unjust. Valverde is known to have committed an anti-doping violation which is punishable by a 2-year ban which was rightly imposed in this particular case. As he has never failed a doping test in competition which is a more reasonable interpretation of the actual wording used by CAS ("there's no evidence that any of the results obtained by Mr Valverde since May 6 2006 until now was through doping infraction") it would be equally unjust to pick any 2 years of his particular career.

The removal of results was unjust. I actually agree with Pistolet here (first time for everything), that he should keep those results, but be banned until May.

5. The argument of an extra punishment due to the CONI ban is similarly disingenuous as the rider in question was not known to participate in races in Italy for years prior to the CONI decision (only 1 race which was the WC). This shows the very limited effect of such sanction.

Except for the Tour de France going into Italy that year of course but yes, Valverde was not known for racing in Italy much. A shame, perhaps, as Tirreno-Adriatico would suit him and his presence might liven up San Remo. He might have been able to pull his usual "follow the right group, then win a sprint if nobody gets away" tactic at Lombardia one year too.

 

[roundabout]

My point 2 and I suppose post #258 is more in reference to your post #251 and some other posts elsewhere complaining about the acquisition of the evidence without making it clear that it's just an argument by Valverde which was subsequently refuted by two bodies making it seem to the unaware that there are still doubts about the evidence collection.

I am not denying that Valverde had to make the argument about sample collection as to me it was his best and only chance given how weak his other arguments were.

As for CONI evidence see point 1 and the Edit. As for Valverde's appeal of the CONI ban once again you're (deliberately?) being misleading as CAS also ruled on the evidence deeming it admissible and relevant,

Re 2010 results the removal is justified given the delays to the proceedings and Valverde's side's desire to get the case over as soon as possible by denying requests of the opposite party. I suppose for a fan it might sting somewhat that some good results were removed. But once again, the sanction imposed was well within the rules. It should also be noted that once the first CAS decision was published in March Valverde should have known that he will be off the road very soon.

 

[La Pandera]

Your feigned objectivity isn't really working, I'm afraid...

That's just the way things work in the dopers' world, and more specifically in the lawyers of dopers' world.

Not just the lawyers of dopers' world but lawyers (defense) in general. No offense intended to lawyers/barristers of the world but that's just reality.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

My point 2 and I suppose post #258 is more in reference to your post #251 and some other posts elsewhere complaining about the acquisition of the evidence without making it clear that it's just an argument by Valverde which was subsequently refuted by two bodies making it seem to the unaware that there are still doubts about the evidence collection.

I am not denying that Valverde had to make the argument about sample collection as to me it was his best and only chance given how weak his other arguments were.

As for CONI evidence see point 1 and the Edit. As for Valverde's appeal of the CONI ban once again you're (deliberately?) being misleading as CAS also ruled on the evidence deeming it admissible and relevant,

Re 2010 results the removal is justified given the delays to the proceedings and Valverde's side's desire to get the case over as soon as possible by denying requests of the opposite party. I suppose for a fan it might sting somewhat that some good results were removed. But once again, the sanction imposed was well within the rules. It should also be noted that once the first CAS decision was published in March Valverde should have known that he will be off the road very soon.

I apologise, I'm not trying to say that the evidence was not admissible or not relevant, I'm speaking from the perspective of 'when the case was still going on', i.e. when these contentions were still being disputed. As long as the ruling hadn't come in, there was no reason for Valverde not to be riding.

Once the timespan of the ban had been decided and included retroactive time, then yes, results in the ban time should disappear. But as those results were not ill-gotten in the eyes of CAS I would have been happy to see him keep those results, but as a trade-off he'd have to sit out two full years, i.e. not return until May. There is no question of banning him to Jan 1 2012 and not removing the 2010 results, because that would be nonsensical. I'm sure after the first hearing ruled in favour of CONI Valverde would have known he was not long for the racing world, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have continued to accumulate results in the interim.

 

[ElChingon]

You can't stop people from voicing a negative opinion on a subject just because its your own thread.

So the "no hate please", constraint wont work and everything else is already being discussed here. Because this thread is already

Yes, but you give up so quickly and feed the hate.

Anyway, back to Alex.

Seguimos esperando vuestras preguntas para el VIDEOCHAT de mañana (14h) con Cobo y Valverde! Usad los hashtags #pCobo y #pValverde.

Video chat tomorrow 14h, be there!

 

[Michele]

Where will they show that?
On their team site?

 

[skidmark]

The procedures to suspend him were absolutely solid. The game should have been over on 11th of May 2009. Instead Piti and his RFEC accomplices decided to keep dragging their little feet.

Words like shaky, dubious and weird are nothing more than pathetic attempts to paint an obvious cheater in a better light.

Where's the puke smiley because it describes best what I am feeling having read the last page of this thread.

I don't understand the connection between pointing out that it was an unusual case and trying to paint Valverde in a better light. I was just saying that, unlike boomcie, Valverde didn't 'lose' me when he 'lied', because I don't really see it the same way. It's obvious that he cheated; it just doesn't bother me that much, and neither does he, because I've so constantly been disappointed by other riders that I am willing to admit that I don't have a clue who might be a cheater, so I don't draw that line in the sand so strongly anymore. It's okay to have a difference of opinion about that; I don't think it's really appropriate to be as demeaning as you are in response - this is a discussion forum, not an insult forum. We're supposed to have a variety of opinions.

edit: reading more, I see it's not just my post you're responding to, so I get what you're saying a bit better. Regardless, not the funnest thing to read that a point you're trying to make is puke-inducing.

 

[boomcie]

I was just saying that, unlike boomcie, Valverde didn't 'lose' me when he 'lied', because I don't really see it the same way. It's obvious that he cheated; it just doesn't bother me that much, and neither does he, because I've so constantly been disappointed by other riders that I am willing to admit that I don't have a clue who might be a cheater, so I don't draw that line in the sand so strongly anymore.

I didn't say that I dislike Valverde because he cheated. I don't even dislike him because he's a liar. I'm not naive you know, I know what the peloton is like.

I dislike him because he keeps lying, despite the evidence against him being irrefutable. That's just nauseating.

 

[mmrevans]

To both: sorry, I had no idea Valverde had admitted to his mistakes...

Clearly it is my point that this guy is a shameless and inveterate liar.
Like Virenque but even worse.

I don't give a sh*t if anyone lies about their drug use, but when irrefutable evidence is presented, one should stop making a fool out of himself. Especially when already sentenced...

@the youngest: my feigned objectivity is simple subjectivity. What's your point?

From Cycling News http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-i-didnt-do-anything-wrong
"I didn’t do anything wrong. I did everything legally. My conscience is clear. "

*** I also hope the first doping positive is from Movistar. When the management allows Valverde to speak like this they damage the sport.

 

[The Hitch]

I hope he breaks a collarbone and his season is minimized.

I got banned for making a joke that a kid who took down Samu should take down Basso as an act of pennance.

I hope this legitimate wish for harm on a rider is treated accordingly.

When the management allows Valverde to speak like this they damage the sport.

Managment should control what he says?

 

[boomcie]

From Cycling News http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-i-didnt-do-anything-wrong
"I didn’t do anything wrong. I did everything legally. My conscience is clear. "

Nice illustration of my point.

I hope he breaks a collarbone and his season is minimized.

Fail.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

From Cycling News http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-i-didnt-do-anything-wrong
"I didn’t do anything wrong. I did everything legally. My conscience is clear. "

I hope he breaks a collarbone and his season is minimized. I also hope the first doping positive is from Movistar. When the management allows Valverde to speak like this they damage the sport.

now that is not nice