• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

How did you read gutierrez letter?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Reverend_T_Preedy said:
Dear Mr Gutiérrez,

I agree with you when you say 'I call on all the sporting authorities... S.O.S... Cycling is dying... Help us. Now.'. However, you seem to have gotten mistaken between the problem and the solution to the problem.

Scum like Valv Piti is what is killing cycling, not the authorities for trying to catch he cheats.

Having written a letter defending the undefendable I now hold you in the same regard as rapists and murderers.

Kind regards

The Reverend.

Next week on defending the undefendable, Ivan Gutiérrez attempts to defend the nazi's actions in Poland and why being raped can be a good thing.

What a moron.
Why do some people lose any sense of proportion (or common decency) when talking about doping? You are insane.
 
Reverend_T_Preedy said:
Dear Mr Gutiérrez,

I agree with you when you say 'I call on all the sporting authorities... S.O.S... Cycling is dying... Help us. Now.'. However, you seem to have gotten mistaken between the problem and the solution to the problem.

Scum like Valv Piti is what is killing cycling, not the authorities for trying to catch he cheats.

Having written a letter defending the undefendable I now hold you in the same regard as rapists and murderers.

Kind regards

The Reverend.

Next week on defending the undefendable, Ivan Gutiérrez attempts to defend the nazi's actions in Poland and why being raped can be a good thing.

What a moron.

A new record! Godwin's Law in 13 posts...
 
May 31, 2010
24
0
0
Maybe the entire pro peloton should go on strike and demand a complete change of the UCI. Get someone in like Lemond or an Elliot Ness character and clean house. From then on all Grand Tours should have dorm rooms at night with cctv surveillance and audio. Eat, sleep and ride together then they all know each other is pure.

Pretty drastic, but if it was the same for everyone, Why not??[/QUOTE]

UlleGigo said:
How many hours a day do they get in the yard for exercise?
Are they allowed to vote?
How would we tell the teams apart if they're all wearing orange jumpsuits?

Ah, touche!

I'm being facetious here but the pro's almost deserve this sort of treatment. Maybe it's better than plucking out a few scapegoats and crucifying them!!
 
thehog said:
I think the letter has merit. Perhaps the translations is poor but what he is saying is that we the cyclists have to dope. And the UCI allows us to dope a little bit. That’s what the passport is. Its not an anti-doping program is a doping monitoring program. A program to ensure that something like Puerto doesn’t happen again. A program so the UCI can ensure that whilst the athletes will still dope they won’t go to ridiculous levels like in the 2000’s. The UCI doesn’t want the police smashing a large doping ring again. You can dope but keep it in the realms for recovery and keeping the show going.

The other point he’s trying to make is why use Valverde as an example? Why do athletes like Armstrong and others have protection whilst Valverde is chased down and busted? Is there really a difference between a blood bag marked “Valv.Piti” and 6 samples marked “34378454” belonging to Armstrong? Why is one tracked down by the UCI and the other has mountains moved to prove his innocence by the controlling body. Its sad. Valverde doped. No doubt about. So does most of the peloton – many to just hang on to the back of the bunch to those who are doping the most. So why punish them? If you’re going to force the cyclists down the clean route then make sure it’s a level playing field for all. And that’s what he’s asking for. The UCI got their man but I think this time they’ve really p*ssed off a lot of cyclists in the way they treat some of them compared to others.

Thanks Hog. Good post.
 
thehog said:
So does most of the peloton – many to just hang on to the back of the bunch to those who are doping the most. So why punish them? If you’re going to force the cyclists down the clean route then make sure it’s a level playing field for all. And that’s what he’s asking for. The UCI got their man but I think this time they’ve really p*ssed off a lot of cyclists in the way they treat some of them compared to others.

So Valverde is a true man of the peloton and they are ****ed about it? Seems to me that only the Spannish are. I don't recall many Spaniards complaining when Ullrich or Basso went down.

Gutiérrez and Valverde could confess and tell what they know of others.

Explain AC's initials in the OP documents... Or how about talking Heras into denying or corroborating what Landis said.
 
TheMight said:
So Valverde is a true man of the peloton and they are ****ed about it? Seems to me that only the Spannish are. I don't recall many Spaniards complaining when Ullrich or Basso went down.

Gutiérrez and Valverde could confess and tell what they know of others.

Explain AC's initials in the OP documents... Or how about talking Heras into denying or corroborating what Landis said.

Herewith lies the problem. Tomorrow’s Floyd Landis is in the peloton today. He’s a young rider and the likes of Gutiérrez or Valverde are already showing them how to dope within the confines of the passport. Young rider will get busted in 5 years time when he moves to another team and we’ll go through the entire process again. It will happen again and the same rhetoric will spewed out again. We’re clean, we have a anti-program, he’s one rotten egg, he can’t be trusted, he has no credibility, he’s a lone man who become desperate and decided to dope blah blah blah. There’s no protection for Valverde who dopes and is targeted when many others are not and there’s no protection for the new young rider who wants to ride clean but is shown how to dope by the likes of Gutiérrez/Armstrong or whomever. We’ve not moved on since 2006 and for that matter not from 1998. We just have a program in place to monitor who’s doping the most.

Lets hope Valverde goes to the Swiss court and asks the UCI to disclosure all of the donations it has received over the years so we can seek clarity on what is a doping infringement and what is not. Are we on a level playing field or not?
 
Feb 1, 2010
58
0
0
thehog said:
Herewith lies the problem. Tomorrow’s Floyd Landis is in the peloton today. He’s a young rider and the likes of Gutiérrez or Valverde are already showing them how to dope within the confines of the passport. Young rider will get busted in 5 years time when he moves to another team and we’ll go through the entire process again. It will happen again and the same rhetoric will spewed out again. We’re clean, we have a anti-program, he’s one rotten egg, he can’t be trusted, he has no credibility, he’s a lone man who become desperate and decided to dope blah blah blah. There’s no protection for Valverde who dopes and is targeted when many others are not and there’s no protection for the new young rider who wants to ride clean but is shown how to dope by the likes of Gutiérrez/Armstrong or whomever. We’ve not moved on since 2006 and for that matter not from 1998. We just have a program in place to monitor who’s doping the most.

Lets hope Valverde goes to the Swiss court and asks the UCI to disclosure all of the donations it has received over the years so we can seek clarity on what is a doping infringement and what is not. Are we on a level playing field or not?

This is why the riders can and have to end all this nonsense. They act like they're not in control of this situation but they are. Whatever they decide to do as a collective group will determine this whole doping situation.
 
May 31, 2010
24
0
0
3rdWheel said:
This is why the riders can and have to end all this nonsense. They act like they're not in control of this situation but they are. Whatever they decide to do as a collective group will determine this whole doping situation.

That's right.. STRIKE! just like the baseballers. :confused:
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
rikdewy said:
From then on all Grand Tours should have dorm rooms at night with cctv surveillance and audio. Eat, sleep and ride together then they all know each other is pure.

Pretty drastic, but if it was the same for everyone, Why not??

This is not a bad suggestion.

I was part of a coaching staff for a national team at the Vancouver Winter Olympics which were viewed to be pretty clean - both from the sporting perspective and no positives thus far. The vast majority of teams stayed in the Olympic village. You had to go through airport-like security checkpoint when entering the compound.

There still were a few suspicious results where an athlete arrived at the games at the last minute - e.g a blood bag taken at home just before the flight over. But consensus was that their doping advantage lasted only a few days which was reflected in the results of these athletes - one good result, then drop-off. There was some discussion to require athletes to arrive at the Olympics a minimum of 5 days before their first event to take away this loophole.

Translation for the grand tours? Organizers would arrange accomodations to all teams for each night of the grand tour, and set up security checkpoints for entering the hotels where bags are searched. It would greatly reduce the chances for cheating. Great prologue performances, then clean(er) racing.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
a link to the letter early in the thread might have been helpful.. :D

as for the letter.. poppyc0ck
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
3rdWheel said:
This is why the riders can and have to end all this nonsense. They act like they're not in control of this situation but they are. Whatever they decide to do as a collective group will determine this whole doping situation.

"Groups" can't make choices like that, individuals can and the individual doesn't get to chose between a clean sport and a dirty one. He gets to chose between winning by being dirty in a dirty sport or not winning by being clean in a dirty sport (if he's good). Alternatively he might get to chose between being a dirty professional or a clean amateur (if he's less good). It's very basic game theory. Pretending that the riders can just get together and decide to be clean is just silly. It's like saying that people should just get together and decide to stop committing crimes or lying.
 
Jul 10, 2009
69
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Also, the negative noun particle conferring ability for the verb 'to defend' is 'indefensible'.

If we're getting the real nazis in, I thought I could add to the internet forum decorum destruction with some grammar nazism too.
rofl.gif
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,318
0
0
Supervet said:
However, the author was spotted entering Fuentes' clinic by surveillance cameras as were Botero and Sevilla so he has no credibility.
Interesting comment. I wonder if that sentiment extends to Landis.

I dumped a girl friend long ago for infidelity. She wanted to get back together and wondered why I couldn't get over her sleeping with someone else. It wasn't that I couldn't forgive her, it was that I couldn't trust her.

The point being, once someone shows a propensity to lie, everything they say from then on should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Cerberus said:
"Groups" can't make choices like that, individuals can and the individual doesn't get to chose between a clean sport and a dirty one.

History has proven otherwise. "Groups" can and do make choices. And as it relates to doping in cycling, I firmly believe that this is exactly what needs to be done. In my opinion, doping is never, ever going to be curtailed signifiantly until there are "group" punishments and then in turn, "group" decisions to ride clean.

Here are my thoughts on it here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7809
 
benpounder said:
Interesting comment. I wonder if that sentiment extends to Landis.

I dumped a girl friend long ago for infidelity. She wanted to get back together and wondered why I couldn't get over her sleeping with someone else. It wasn't that I couldn't forgive her, it was that I couldn't trust her.

The point being, once someone shows a propensity to lie, everything they say from then on should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Did Lance slip one into her?
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
131313 said:
History has proven otherwise. "Groups" can and do make choices. And as it relates to doping in cycling, I firmly believe that this is exactly what needs to be done. In my opinion, doping is never, ever going to be curtailed signifiantly until there are "group" punishments and then in turn, "group" decisions to ride clean.

Here are my thoughts on it here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7809

And when exactly has history proven otherwise? Sure if it's a very small and tightly knit group or if compliance can be monitored that's one thing. The professional peloton however is a fairly big group and it's influenced by sponsors who wants results and most importantly compliance cannot be effectively monitored. If doping could be effectively monitored we wouldn't need any sort of group mind decision, we could just monitor the doping and punish the dopers problem solved. The example in your link shows that selfmonitoring can work when anybody can tell whether you cheat. With doping you don't know who is cheating so you don't know who to punish, at best you could force dopers to be slightly more subtle.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,318
0
0
thehog said:
Did Lance slip one into her?
He may have. They raced the Jr Tri curcuit together in Texas. In fact, she was the one that, long ago, clued me that Lance was an arrogant asshole. But that, as you well know, is beside the point.
 
thehog said:
I think the letter has merit. Perhaps the translations is poor but what he is saying is that we the cyclists have to dope. And the UCI allows us to dope a little bit. That’s what the passport is. Its not an anti-doping program is a doping monitoring program. A program to ensure that something like Puerto doesn’t happen again. A program so the UCI can ensure that whilst the athletes will still dope they won’t go to ridiculous levels like in the 2000’s. The UCI doesn’t want the police smashing a large doping ring again. You can dope but keep it in the realms for recovery and keeping the show going.

The other point he’s trying to make is why use Valverde as an example? Why do athletes like Armstrong and others have protection whilst Valverde is chased down and busted? Is there really a difference between a blood bag marked “Valv.Piti” and 6 samples marked “34378454” belonging to Armstrong? Why is one tracked down by the UCI and the other has mountains moved to prove his innocence by the controlling body. Its sad. Valverde doped. No doubt about. So does most of the peloton – many to just hang on to the back of the bunch to those who are doping the most. So why punish them? If you’re going to force the cyclists down the clean route then make sure it’s a level playing field for all. And that’s what he’s asking for. The UCI got their man but I think this time they’ve really p*ssed off a lot of cyclists in the way they treat some of them compared to others.
+1

Nothing else needs to be said about this.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
+1

Nothing else needs to be said about this.

Just catching up on this. Here are a few point I'd like to make about the letter:

1. The need to cite Valverde as a "natural racer" is silly and immaterial. Of course he is a fantastic, natural racer. he is just that much better when topped off on all his values.

2. The "never tested positive" is actually false. The blood bags, as now matched by DNA, contained EPO. So, while it could be argued as an indirect detection (outside his body, not in a doping control), it is a detection none the less.

3. Citing the other "natural talents", such as Olano, Beloki, Gonzalez de Galdeano, Jalabert, Pereiro and Menchov, does not invoke the image of cleanliness.

4. Taking the position that this is "how the majority of Spanish cycling feels", does nothing to impart trust or credibility, even if true.

5. Considering the Valverde case and decision as an injustice only illustrates a lack of understanding of how justice works.

6. Complaining that everyone must pay for the mistakes of the few will fall on deaf ears.

It is a revealing letter in that he takes the position of "practicing" the sport, as if it were an art. While I agree that it is more closely aligned with entertainment (due to the stature and dollars involved) than a purely sporting endeavor (like certain other Olympic events), and I feel that cycling should evolve to become more like other, larger global sports where the doping controls are less likely to impair the progress of the commercialized aspects of its potential, it is a poor decision for Mr. Gutierrez to act as un-official spokesperson on the topic.
 
Does anybody have either a link or a copy of the Original letter in Spanish?

I was going to opine on this, but i'm afraid there are sentences that quite don't make sense, possibly due to mistranslation.