How did you read gutierrez letter?

[Mongol_Waaijer]

There are so many logical fallacies in your comments that I don't know if you're actually being serious or joking. Regardless, a couple of things:

-a lot of riders don't actually want to dope. Many are doing it because think everyone else is, so there's simply no other choice.

-very, very few riders have any idea about the dangerous health aspects of doping. Of course, neither do a lot of the doctors. Hint: EPO is more dangerous than orange juice. The riders are acting as human guinea pigs, and the people profiting are the doctors. Do you have any idea of the long-term affects of therapeutic EPO use in individuals with healthy immune systems? Of course you don't, because no one knows. Of course, when some retired riders start getting red cell aplasia in their early 40's, we'll know a little more. Same goes for long-term manipulations of hormones.

I'm sorry, but the average professional bike racer simply isn't equipped to decide what medications are and are not safe. Sometimes you have to rely on some "suits".

-just because bike racing is dangerous, it doesn't mean it's OK to throw on some more unnecessary risk

-just because the sport has a legacy of doping, it doesn't mean that I don't have the right to clean and fair competition. Suggesting I go 'start my own race series' is ridiculous.

-it is my business if another rider is engaged in a banned, potentially dangerous process which gives him a competitive advantage over me. It's also my business if he chooses to get into a car and drive to the top of the climbs.

-not everyone is doing it, so the playing field is, indeed, not level

What I want is pretty simple. I want my peers to follows the rules to which they agreed, and which I choose to follow.

Brilliant Post. +1

 

[Galic Ho]

A lot of people saying some stupid things here. Many assuming Gutierrez was defending doping. You people are morons of the highest order. Please go back to hicksville or wherever it is you came from and disappear. Your intellect is in congruence with the UCI, you're not bright, but like the UCI, think you are making a relevant point. You're just baying and spraying hatred of doping.

Gutierrez statements are spot on and similar to Delgado's. They are not defending doping. They are defending the situation cyclists, professional atheltes, have been placed in by their sports governing body. All of the above retards missed the main point. BioPassport, clean samples, no positives, but the UCI still asked CAS to strip Valverde of his wins and records for 4 years, that he won on their system and via its protocols, he was clean. Whether the system is right or wrong is not the point. It is what is in place and you are judged accordingly. Step in CAS and they tell UCI to go F1sT themselves. The UCI let him race, tested him and he won by the rules set in place. Right decision.

Why? Because the system is what sanctions riders who deter from it's boundaries. You may still dope, but technically you haven't unless the BioPassport or a sample says you have. All sports have similar guidelines that cover more than just doping principles. The bright people out there realised this is what Gutierrez was talking about. He is saying, fix it. It casts doubt on the entire sport because the UCI can backflip on their own rules when it suits them. It tars the entire peloton. He did not advocate a specific path to take, hence you cannot tar him with the Omerta brush. He left the choice up to others to make. A wise move. Either make it better, aka stricter, which it should be, or go after everyone from Puerto. Not just Valverde. Go after Lance. Go dna match the samples the AFLD has from Astana last year. Those samples break French law. Why not match them? Gutierrez is asking for everyone to be treated equally. Why? Look at this years Giro and read the stage 17 thread. Doping accusations are thrown around constantly.

To the morons on this forum who missed that, remove the tree from your eyes, drop the hatred of the riders who dope and think of something constructive next time. Maybe with Floyd's revelations, Valverde and Pellizotti sitting out, maybe, just maybe, the BioPassport committee can finally get it right and start making the sport better with some help from the AFLD at this years Tour. If you don't know how I am not going to tell you. Banning one guy solves nothing. That much was obvious from Gutierrez statements when the BioPassport let him race and declared him the deserved winner of all his results.

 

[Tubeless]

A lot of people saying some stupid things here. Many assuming Gutierrez was defending doping. You people are morons of the highest order. Please go back to hicksville or wherever it is you came from and disappear. Your intellect is in congruence with the UCI, you're not bright, but like the UCI, think you are making a relevant point. You're just baying and spraying hatred of doping.

Gutierrez statements are spot on and similar to Delgado's. They are not defending doping. They are defending the situation cyclists, professional atheltes, have been placed in by their sports governing body. All of the above retards missed the main point. BioPassport, clean samples, no positives, but the UCI still asked CAS to strip Valverde of his wins and records for 4 years, that he won on their system and via its protocols, he was clean. Whether the system is right or wrong is not the point. It is what is in place and you are judged accordingly. Step in CAS and they tell UCI to go F1sT themselves. The UCI let him race, tested him and he won by the rules set in place. Right decision.

Why? Because the system is what sanctions riders who deter from it's boundaries. You may still dope, but technically you haven't unless the BioPassport or a sample says you have. All sports have similar guidelines that cover more than just doping principles. The bright people out there realised this is what Gutierrez was talking about. He is saying, fix it. It casts doubt on the entire sport because the UCI can backflip on their own rules when it suits them. It tars the entire peloton. He did not advocate a specific path to take, hence you cannot tar him with the Omerta brush. He left the choice up to others to make. A wise move. Either make it better, aka stricter, which it should be, or go after everyone from Puerto. Not just Valverde. Go after Lance. Go dna match the samples the AFLD has from Astana last year. Those samples break French law. Why not match them? Gutierrez is asking for everyone to be treated equally. Why? Look at this years Giro and read the stage 17 thread. Doping accusations are thrown around constantly.

To the morons on this forum who missed that, remove the tree from your eyes, drop the hatred of the riders who dope and think of something constructive next time. Maybe with Floyd's revelations, Valverde and Pellizotti sitting out, maybe, just maybe, the BioPassport committee can finally get it right and start making the sport better with some help from the AFLD at this years Tour. If you don't know how I am not going to tell you. Banning one guy solves nothing. That much was obvious from Gutierrez statements when the BioPassport let him race and declared him the deserved winner of all his results.

The system is indeed unfair. UCI does the bare minimum in order to respond to the pressure it gets from the sponsors, public and the IOC, its governing organization to fight doping, which we all know is rampant in pro cycling.

It's not fair to say Valverde was served injustice. He doped, he got caught and after a long appeal process, got his penalty. It's easy to see how his supporters feel he's being singled out, but they should direct their anger at CONI that pursued the case aggressively. UCI would have been just as happy to let it slide. Once CONI had the proof, and presented a unique case forward (similar to Basso's - but with the exception of no confession), UCI had to act on it - otherwise UCI itself would have been accused of favoritism.

The riders know the rules. And note that the rules don't say that "you may not be caught positive in a doping control" - they state clearly that taking PEDs is prohibited. CAS has recently ruled (in a case of a German speed skater) that the evidence of blood values that could only be obtained via PEDs is sufficient proof of doping. No more need for a positive A and B sample.

The highway patrol does not catch all speeders. But most speeders accept the fact that if they speed and get caught, there is a penalty. UCI is like a cop, and a lazy one at that.

Was Valverde targeted? That's arguable, and certainly not by the UCI. Not sure what exactly Gutierrez or Delgado want changed? UCI does not have jurisdiction over the French samples of Astana - that one is in the hands of French police. If they bring a case, UCI may indeed need to act.

 

[Polish]

It is not a level playing field today. More money buys you a better doping program. Lance can afford to fly his blood bags to France in a private plane. And buy himself out of trouble with a well-targeted donation. Entry level pro riders are left to do just the cheap stuff - and often suffer the consequences of amateurish dope program which can result in a positive test.

Doping brings with it a culture of corruption. Pro riders have to live their lives through a lie - they lie to their sponsors, their supporters, their families. You may like that, but most riders, even those who dope, would love to see a new level playing field where they don't need to take drugs - and be assured that no one has that special advantage.

Lance was once an entry level rider too. Poor as dirt.
IronKids competitor as a pre-teen....Borrowed Steel Bike.

And Level Playing Field? Please. No such thing.
There is no "levelplayingfield" in COMPETITION.

Awesome rises to the Top.
The Most Awesome rise to the Very Top.

 

[MacRoadie]

Awesome rises to the Top.

Ask a few people down on the Gulf Coast and they'll tell you "slimy and greasy" also rises to the top. It creates an impenetrable sheen and coats in a layer of filth.

 

[Galic Ho]

The system is indeed unfair. UCI does the bare minimum in order to respond to the pressure it gets from the sponsors, public and the IOC, its governing organization to fight doping, which we all know is rampant in pro cycling.

It's not fair to say Valverde was served injustice. He doped, he got caught and after a long appeal process, got his penalty. It's easy to see how his supporters feel he's being singled out, but they should direct their anger at CONI that pursued the case aggressively. UCI would have been just as happy to let it slide. Once CONI had the proof, and presented a unique case forward (similar to Basso's - but with the exception of no confession), UCI had to act on it - otherwise UCI itself would have been accused of favoritism.

The riders know the rules. And note that the rules don't say that "you may not be caught positive in a doping control" - they state clearly that taking PEDs is prohibited. CAS has recently ruled (in a case of a German speed skater) that the evidence of blood values that could only be obtained via PEDs is sufficient proof of doping. No more need for a positive A and B sample.

The highway patrol does not catch all speeders. But most speeders accept the fact that if they speed and get caught, there is a penalty. UCI is like a cop, and a lazy one at that.

Was Valverde targeted? That's arguable, and certainly not by the UCI. Not sure what exactly Gutierrez or Delgado want changed? UCI does not have jurisdiction over the French samples of Astana - that one is in the hands of French police. If they bring a case, UCI may indeed need to act.

I think you missed Gutierrez main point. He was mainly referring, in a subtle tone, to the BioPassport. Most people in the Clinic know athletes have gotten around it. Ashenden confirmed what Floyd said in the last fortnight that epo microdosing can avoid detection and supplement blood doping in a GT. Bad news. Worse was that it makes everyone who looks clean, suddenly fall into the suspicion boat. Bad news for the whole sport. Who let this happen? The UCI by not constructing the BioPassport properly to begin with. Hypocrisy is the main word that comes to mind. It is hypocritical of the UCI to allow double standards whenever it suits their case.

Really you don't know what Gutierrez and Delgado want changed? They want a clear line drawn in the sand. Where do they want the line drawn? Who knows. But to say they savour doping is wrong...the language was not there to make that assumption in this case. Logic suggests the BioPassport needs a lengthy supporting document with it. Who here did not see the reading from Armstrong and Wigans at last years Tour and think immediately that those readings should have been flagged? They weren't. Something is wrong with the BioPassport if it was constructed in a manner that ignores natural human body fatigue. In short they need total haemoglobin volume measuring for every rider. That will stop blood doping.

As for Valverde doping. That is not the issue. Of course he did, we've all known that for a long time its just that some people get hung up on bashing the bad doper as soon as they are found out or punished. Banning Valverde, Pellizotti and a few others lately is one of the few things the UCI have gotten right. But it still smells aweful when all the other faults are put into the limelight. Go look at the other threads in the Clinic for an idea of how many there are. There are hundreds. As for the AFLD/Astana samples. The UCI hold the riders dna. We all know why they won't hand the data over or even raise the issue. Doing so would remove the entire RadioShack team from the ProTour. A team without riders...a team allowed to queue jump...great advertisement. Reeks of favouritism and I abhor it as such. Protect the white guys and screw the rest. I'm white and I think it sucks ballsack bigtime.

 

[luckyboy]

As for the AFLD/Astana samples. The UCI hold the riders dna. We all know why they won't hand the data over or even raise the issue.

If the AFLD get to test at the Tour, they can do some targeted testing..

 

[Tubeless]

I think you missed Gutierrez main point. He was mainly referring, in a subtle tone, to the BioPassport. Most people in the Clinic know athletes have gotten around it. Ashenden confirmed what Floyd said in the last fortnight that epo microdosing can avoid detection and supplement blood doping in a GT. Bad news. Worse was that it makes everyone who looks clean, suddenly fall into the suspicion boat. Bad news for the whole sport. Who let this happen? The UCI by not constructing the BioPassport properly to begin with. Hypocrisy is the main word that comes to mind. It is hypocritical of the UCI to allow double standards whenever it suits their case.

Really you don't know what Gutierrez and Delgado want changed? They want a clear line drawn in the sand. Where do they want the line drawn? Who knows. But to say they savour doping is wrong...the language was not there to make that assumption in this case. Logic suggests the BioPassport needs a lengthy supporting document with it. Who here did not see the reading from Armstrong and Wigans at last years Tour and think immediately that those readings should have been flagged? They weren't. Something is wrong with the BioPassport if it was constructed in a manner that ignores natural human body fatigue. In short they need total haemoglobin volume measuring for every rider. That will stop blood doping.

As for Valverde doping. That is not the issue. Of course he did, we've all known that for a long time its just that some people get hung up on bashing the bad doper as soon as they are found out or punished. Banning Valverde, Pellizotti and a few others lately is one of the few things the UCI have gotten right. But it still smells aweful when all the other faults are put into the limelight. Go look at the other threads in the Clinic for an idea of how many there are. There are hundreds. As for the AFLD/Astana samples. The UCI hold the riders dna. We all know why they won't hand the data over or even raise the issue. Doing so would remove the entire RadioShack team from the ProTour. A team without riders...a team allowed to queue jump...great advertisement. Reeks of favouritism and I abhor it as such. Protect the white guys and screw the rest. I'm white and I think it sucks ballsack bigtime.

Don't get me wrong - not defending the UCI one bit. If it really wanted to reduce doping, UCI could do lots more. Adopt the blood volume test developed by Asheden. Require that all pro riders must make their DNA available for any national anti-doping investigation. Impose penalties on pro teams - ban a team from protour when more than X riders from the same team get caught within a 2-year period. Make teams pay a financial penalty to UCI each time one of its riders get caught for doping. Impose the same ban on team managers as on the athlete - 2-year time-out from pro cycling if one of your riders get caught. That would force the teams to change the terms of their contracts with the riders - e.g. annual salary is paid only at the conclusion of a clean season.

Why isn't any of this happening? Because UCI has its head in the sand, they believe that status quo can be maintained forever. Catch a few bad apples every now and then, proclaim the sport has cleaned itself - and keep the money flowing. UCI does not care about clean cycling - they only care about cycling that has a clean public image. To really affect change in a fundamental way, someone (IOC?) would have to take the anti-doping authority away from the UCI and hand it to an independent body.

 

[Aguirre]

This is one reason why some countries have proceeded to criminalize doping. Pro sports is one of the only remaining businesses where it is legal to cheat and get away with it. Even Valverde got to keep all his winnings when he got his 2-year ban. It's not far from robbing a bank, getting caught, and the penalty is just that you may not rob another bank for 2 years. Oh, by the way, you can keep the money you took from the bank.

Until this gets changed and financial penalties are imposed, the temptation to dope is just too great.[/QUOTE]

your poor understanding of cycling makes me laugh, so you must agree Valverde's winnings should be erased since 2004, right?
The bank comparison is just naive too: logic: there are two different things, robbing a bank and Valverde's case. The rest is cheap populism.

 

[Tubeless]

your poor understanding of cycling makes me laugh, so you must agree Valverde's winnings should be erased since 2004, right?
The bank comparison is just naive too: logic: there are two different things, robbing a bank and Valverde's case. The rest is cheap populism.

From the UCI press release announcing the Valverde ban:

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENe...s/UCI/UCI7/layout.asp?MenuId=MTI2Mjc&LangId=1

"Mr Valverde will not be allowed to participate in any cycling events before 31 December 2011. Furthermore, he has been disqualified from all competitions in which he has competed since the beginning of the year and all points allocated to him have been removed. Mr Valverde must also return all prizes received."

UCI and WADA had in fact applied to have all Valverde's winnings be erased for the period since the CAS appeal was filed - but CAS denied this request. Moral of the story? Keep up the appeals, earn as much money as you can - the money is yours to keep. The event organizers face the additional burden of trying to collect the monies already paid - even as the CAS decision requires so for the 2010 races.

In other sports, several nations require their national team athletes to sign contracts where they commit to paying back all the winnings & team support payments if they get caught doping. Local contracts, local laws are more easily enforcable - in cycling there are too many ways out and riders feel the risks continue to be worth taking.

 

[Galic Ho]

Don't get me wrong - not defending the UCI one bit. If it really wanted to reduce doping, UCI could do lots more. Adopt the blood volume test developed by Asheden. Require that all pro riders must make their DNA available for any national anti-doping investigation. Impose penalties on pro teams - ban a team from protour when more than X riders from the same team get caught within a 2-year period. Make teams pay a financial penalty to UCI each time one of its riders get caught for doping. Impose the same ban on team managers as on the athlete - 2-year time-out from pro cycling if one of your riders get caught. That would force the teams to change the terms of their contracts with the riders - e.g. annual salary is paid only at the conclusion of a clean season.

Why isn't any of this happening? Because UCI has its head in the sand, they believe that status quo can be maintained forever. Catch a few bad apples every now and then, proclaim the sport has cleaned itself - and keep the money flowing. UCI does not care about clean cycling - they only care about cycling that has a clean public image. To really affect change in a fundamental way, someone (IOC?) would have to take the anti-doping authority away from the UCI and hand it to an independent body.

Agree with all of it. If the UCI implemented most of these ideas and became transparent cycling would change for the good. At least people are being pulled over for the BioPassport. This took a while. One Italian guy received a 2 year ban the other day.

If the AFLD get to test at the Tour, they can do some targeted testing..

I'm hoping they do. Their country, their soil and WADA says they can. All they have to do is put in the request and from what I've read, even if the UCI say no, Bordry and his boys can turn up and lay the heat on the peloton. I hope a blowtorch or two are applied to RadioShack. It would be great to see the Gendarme conduct a few hotel raids and invade some of the buses mid race. Scare the crap out of the teams and hopefully catch someone with their pants down (forgive the pun, I do know what happens in a urine test).