• 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 @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!

Just wait for the protests of Valverde's innocence...

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 25, 2009
344
0
0
Visit site
Galic Ho said:
Above. I never said Alejandro is innocent but I have an appreciation for the law. .....

For the record. Valverde is no more dirty than Evans, Rogers and Gerrans. If one is doing it, they all are. Evidence...how they ride and who they associate with.

That last paragraph is just oozing respect for the law right?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Libertine Seguros said:
Do we count Fränk Schleck too, or is he being conveniently forgotten again? I know there isn't as much evidence against Amigo de Brillo as there is against Valverde, but he's merrily riding around without sanction or blacklisting.
also what is the mail on Riis. Suposedly he brought the entire A team of CSC down to Madrid to visit Fuentes. Then the mail on Fuentes re-starting his "practice" within 18 months, and operating in the Canary Islands. Who knows. Murky stuff.
 
Mar 10, 2009
243
0
0
www.flickr.com
In the meantime, he (Valverde) has won some of the biggest races in the sport, including the 2009 Vuelta a España (pictured below), three stages of the Tour de France, two ProTour titles, two editions of Liège-Bastogne-Liège and two Daphiné Libéré races.

Who came 2nd in these races? They could have their palmares updated soon :D.
 
2009 Vuelta: Samuel Sánchez

2006 Vuelta, Stage 7: Carlos Sastre

2008 Vuelta, Stage 2: Davide Rebellin (Ballan 3rd)

2005 Tour de France, Stage 10: Lance Armstrong

2008 Tour de France, Stage 1: Philippe Gilbert

2008 Tour de France, Stage 6: Cadel Evans (Evans was 3rd and Valverde 2nd on this stage; the win passed to Valverde after Riccò's positive was announced)

2006 ProTour: Samuel Sánchez

2008 ProTour: Damiano Cunego

2006 La Flèche Wallonne: Samuel Sánchez

2006 Liège-Bastogne-Liège: Paolo Bettini

2008 Liège-Bastogne-Liège: Davide Rebellin (already disgraced, 3rd place is Fränk "Amigo de Brillo" Schleck)

2008 Dauphiné Libéré: Cadel Evans

2008 Dauphiné Libéré Stage 1: Thor Hushovd

2008 Dauphiné Libéré Stage 3: Levi Leipheimer

2009 Dauphiné Libéré: Cadel Evans

2008 Spanish National Championships: Óscar Sevilla

2008 Clásica San Sebastián: Aleksandr Kolobnev

2009 Volta a Catalunya: Dan Martin

2009 Vuelta a Burgos: Xavier Tondo
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
Papparrazzi said:
In the meantime, he (Valverde) has won some of the biggest races in the sport, including the 2009 Vuelta a España (pictured below), three stages of the Tour de France, two ProTour titles, two editions of Liège-Bastogne-Liège and two Daphiné Libéré races.

Who came 2nd in these races? They could have their palmares updated soon :D.

I don't think anyone will get their palmares updated. Davide Rebellin won La Fleche Wallone in 2009 after testing positive during his silver medal performance in the men's road race in the 2008 Olympics. His silver medal was revoked because he tested positive during this race. But Rebellin is still credited with winning La Fleche Wallone, despite it being several months after the Olympics, because his positive results came about in April 2009 as a result of retrospective testing of Olympic blood samples for CERA.

Valverde's situation seems similar to Rebellin, except Valverde's positive was never from a particular race so none of his race results will be revoked.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
2009 Vuelta: Samuel Sánchez

2006 Vuelta, Stage 7: Carlos Sastre

2008 Vuelta, Stage 2: Davide Rebellin (Ballan 3rd)

2005 Tour de France, Stage 10: Lance Armstrong

2008 Tour de France, Stage 1: Philippe Gilbert

2008 Tour de France, Stage 6: Cadel Evans (Evans was 3rd and Valverde 2nd on this stage; the win passed to Valverde after Riccò's positive was announced)

2006 ProTour: Samuel Sánchez

2008 ProTour: Damiano Cunego

2006 La Flèche Wallonne: Samuel Sánchez

2006 Liège-Bastogne-Liège: Paolo Bettini

2008 Liège-Bastogne-Liège: Davide Rebellin (already disgraced, 3rd place is Fränk "Amigo de Brillo" Schleck)

2008 Dauphiné Libéré: Cadel Evans

2008 Dauphiné Libéré Stage 1: Thor Hushovd

2008 Dauphiné Libéré Stage 3: Levi Leipheimer

2009 Dauphiné Libéré: Cadel Evans

2008 Spanish National Championships: Óscar Sevilla

2008 Clásica San Sebastián: Aleksandr Kolobnev

2009 Volta a Catalunya: Dan Martin

2009 Vuelta a Burgos: Xavier Tondo

S.Sanchez and C.Evans will both have updated palmares due to Valverde's positive/ban..............I cant believe Cadel has one the Dauphine twice in a row.....................
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
igamogam said:
Actually, they also have a positive match of Mr. Vs DNA mixed with EPO - pretty conclusive. The initials on the blood bag don't count for much.

This is unlikely to go to such a high level of law as Valverde's legal team will wisely advise him to back down when the Spanish courts finish their legal review and make the samples admissiable. Mr. V is "on a hiding to nothing" he should cut his losses and not make a complete fool of himself.

Personally I find it difficult to argue against the probability most, if not all, of the "great" riders of the last 50 years have used or at least dabbled with doping. That includes my heroes.

I like how you quoted me and conveniently left out the prior paragraph that was the crux of my point. Nothing like making your point look stronger by selectively excluding a portion of info. DNA match, yes apparently. How did they get it? Illegally or through the proper means? Timing is the biggest tell to me, but it will take me too long to explain it.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Galic Ho said:
I like how you quoted me and conveniently left out the prior paragraph that was the crux of my point. Nothing like making your point look stronger by selectively excluding a portion of info. DNA match, yes apparently. How did they get it? Illegally or through the proper means? Timing is the biggest tell to me, but it will take me too long to explain it.

It was obtained through proper means. Read the CAS report. It is pretty detailed about how they followed the correct process. It also details all of the other evidence beyond the DNA evidence.

If Valverde had a brain he would have done the same thing Basso did.
 

Krap Police

BANNED
Mar 15, 2010
47
0
0
Visit site
Galic Ho said:
I like how you quoted me and conveniently left out the prior paragraph that was the crux of my point. Nothing like making your point look stronger by selectively excluding a portion of info. DNA match, yes apparently. How did they get it? Illegally or through the proper means? Timing is the biggest tell to me, but it will take me too long to explain it.

You are a bit of a krrrrrap slinger. Even I know the bag waz gotten by legal meenz.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Basso and Scarponi are innocent too?

There is a thread on this in the Clinic too.
I have been looking through the Valverde case today - and I have been looking for the story on Serrano being on vacation and that CONI illegally obtained it, I keep getting redirected to blogs or comment sections.

I have actually found an Italian piece where CONI say they got the permission from Serrano.

Evans, Rogers, Gerrans.... there DNA hasn't been matched to a blood bag in a gynecologists fridge which contained EPO.

Hell no. Basso we all know won the Giro doped to the gills. His present ability reveals as much. Does that mean he is clean now? No.

I read the piece you wanted a few months back. Ask Icefire for it. I believe he posted a link a month or two back. When I first heard last year CONI had DNA evidence the first thing that hit me was how? I thought it was common knowledge Serrano had sealed all the physical evidence and closed the case...you know the public health aspect. As such my first thoughts were how could they have info? The Spanish weren't legally allowed to hand it out, so how did they get it? Icefire popped on here a month or two back and answered that for me. I assumed what I had read via the link was correct.

Travel forward to now and CAS agreed CONI had a right to the evidence. Valverde's lawyers think they are wrong. Who is right? CAS may have made an incorrect ruling. Considering my legal experience lies with Company, Contract and Taxation law then I will consider reading up on more CAS rulings...but I need to read their findings and check up on some things. This takes time. Legal reports are long and boring as all hell.

As for CONI saying they had permission for Serrano. Well if that is the case then Valverde is in big trouble. Do you have a link? I'm just trying to find balance and get an understanding for how everything has unfolded. Either way Valverde has played his hand well. Stall, then stall some more. In the meantime win as many races as he can. Considering he has a Ferrari or two in the garage, then he will

As for the Aussie riders I mentioned. Yes they don't have DNA in a blood bag mixed with EPO, but Rogers did visit Freidburg with T-Mobile in 06. My point was more or less that as an Aussie I hold no illusions they are cleaner and whiter than a priests bed linen. Gerrans takes trips to Colorado with Lance and Levi before the Tour. Why associate with riders who ride on the largely assumed, biggest doped up team in history? My point was to illustrate that I don't tow the line BlackCat refers to as "Anglophone" blindness and naivety.

Has anyone thought that it is more interesting and revealing that all the OP bad boys have never failed a drugs test?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Galic Ho said:
Hell no. Basso we all know won the Giro doped to the gills. His present ability reveals as much. Does that mean he is clean now? No.

I read the piece you wanted a few months back. Ask Icefire for it. I believe he posted a link a month or two back. When I first heard last year CONI had DNA evidence the first thing that hit me was how? I thought it was common knowledge Serrano had sealed all the physical evidence and closed the case...you know the public health aspect. As such my first thoughts were how could they have info? The Spanish weren't legally allowed to hand it out, so how did they get it? Icefire popped on here a month or two back and answered that for me. I assumed what I had read via the link was correct.

Travel forward to now and CAS agreed CONI had a right to the evidence. Valverde's lawyers think they are wrong. Who is right? CAS may have made an incorrect ruling. Considering my legal experience lies with Company, Contract and Taxation law then I will consider reading up on more CAS rulings...but I need to read their findings and check up on some things. This takes time. Legal reports are long and boring as all hell.

As for CONI saying they had permission for Serrano. Well if that is the case then Valverde is in big trouble. Do you have a link? I'm just trying to find balance and get an understanding for how everything has unfolded. Either way Valverde has played his hand well. Stall, then stall some more. In the meantime win as many races as he can. Considering he has a Ferrari or two in the garage, then he will

As for the Aussie riders I mentioned. Yes they don't have DNA in a blood bag mixed with EPO, but Rogers did visit Freidburg with T-Mobile in 06. My point was more or less that as an Aussie I hold no illusions they are cleaner and whiter than a priests bed linen. Gerrans takes trips to Colorado with Lance and Levi before the Tour. Why associate with riders who ride on the largely assumed, biggest doped up team in history? My point was to illustrate that I don't tow the line BlackCat refers to as "Anglophone" blindness and naivety.

Has anyone thought that it is more interesting and revealing that all the OP bad boys have never failed a drugs test?

I would suggest you read the CAS report. Focus on the "PROCEDURES EN ITALIE" section as it describes in detail the timeline and communications.

CONI followed proper procedure, Valverde is about to start a 2 year vacation.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Or in the Spanish Federations case not bother at all.

Great point and noted. However did Spanish authorities not investigate because the law prevented them access to the evidence needed to make a case against athletes or because they knew they would find a rats nest and didn't want the spectacle? I can also see a likely scenario where another aspect came into play.

Fuentes Black Book. 200 names. 35 cyclists. FIFA and UEFA were all over this when it started. Lawyers were called and nothing ever happened. I think from memory, Barca and Real were mentioned in a paper and the reports in the press were stopped ASAP. Part of that may have been because the lawyers for those affiliated with Football, knew the case could not transfer across to sporting fraud and only remain as public health issue. Read what you will into this part of OP, but cycling bore the brunt, though reports suggest they were the smallest recipients and clientele of Fuentes.

The one glimmer of hope is not that Valverde will be banned. No, that laws were changed in European nations that in the event anything like this happens in future, authorities will have means and the right to slap some force down on those who think sporting fraud is cool and justifiable. If this happens again, and it will, judges will have no option but to pursue all aggressive avenues, because legislation was put in place. Should make most people here happy in the event another OP arises...people in theory will go down. Heck, take the bans CONI threw out to some guys last year. One life ban and another for 8 years for dealing to other riders. Things are slowly changing for the better. Which in turn means the UCI won't necessarily be able to play the ignorance card.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
auscyclefan94 said:
When evans or gerrans are linked to a doping scandal which has some substance, come and let me know buddy!
The association arguement is a bit of a joke because nearly every rider will be linked to another doper !

I do agree that valverde's case has been badly handled?

I put this question to you...
Do you think that all top riders are dirty?

Yep. To a degree. I don't know all the ins and outs but your BMC boy ain't clean. Just as I can read the writing on the wall with Wigans last year and Garmin. He wasn't clean either. If one aussie can keep up with Valverde they are either both doing or are both clean. Evans is not a physical anomaly who can come close to suspected dopers clean. There is no mutual exclusion for any rider. If O2 enhancing drugs are as effective as the science says, then nobody but a genetic anomaly could stand a chance clean. Then assume all the top pro's are at the precipice of genetic potential and strength and you can see the picture. They are already pushing the edge. Hence, they are all doing something or the UCI are right and the sport is clean. BlackCat and many others have pointed this out to you before. This Anglophone superiority complex really is daft.

Explain the Gerrans link up with Lance and Levi last June in Colorado? Explain his jump in form in his late 20s, winning lots of stages. He is a lot better than when he was younger. You suspect deep down like I do that the aussies are doing everything those "dirty filthy" Euopean's and yanks do to win. Are you going to come out and admit it? Don't worry I don't need you to or expect as much. Do so whenever you desire...alternatively deny, deny, deny. I note you didn't try and defend Rogers which I will assume means you know that riding for HTC he is far from innocent. You don't need to. You mistook my point. It was not about transference and misdirection. My point was to highlight the hypocrisy and superiority complex afflicting Anglophone fans of the sport.
 
igamogam said:
Title says it all.

Super talented rider but a real shame. I hope he serves his ban graciously and helps kill off the doping culture by admitting what he's done.

First comment on the post I made concerning Valverde elicited this response. When you think about it, if he was doping but then stopped, one might expect a drop in his form and subsequent race results - but that's not really happened. So the argument goes that he must be clean because if he was doping and almost caught he would have laid off the sauce and his results would have suffered. Way too many variables to control for there, plus at the end of the day isn't it his DNA in both the blood sample taken in Italy and the blood bag from Puerto (assuming intact chain of custody)?
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
I would suggest you read the CAS report. Focus on the "PROCEDURES EN ITALIE" section as it describes in detail the timeline and communications.

CONI followed proper procedure, Valverde is about to start a 2 year vacation.

I will. Is it on the CAS website? Is it 150 pages? I heard it was a long read...long legal reads bore me senseless. Looks like I've got something for the long weekend...Easter here down under. We get Friday off, don't know if you do. My biggest concern was the timeline. If what I've been spouting was correct then to my understanding CONI and the UCI needed to go to CAS to make a charge/claim to the evidence and then enforce a ban if the data matched. This isn't what happened. If the Spanish authorities let CONI have the data then Valverde is gone. My issue was always the legality and timing, not whether he was guilty. His guilt was always a given.

If it turns out what I'd heard before is wrong (Serrano and Coni trading info) then I will have to ask some questions about all the sources that confirmed what I'd heard. Sounds like I might be asking some questions. For the record, most of my views were based on media reports. Doesn't seem like a good prospect. Either way, if Ricco can get a suspended ban and Basso can race whilst banned, I doubt Valverde will sit out two whole years. Not that his bank balance will be really hurt. You don't have a Ferrari in the garage and lack some spare change.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Galic Ho said:
I will. Is it on the CAS website? Is it 150 pages? I heard it was a long read...long legal reads bore me senseless. Looks like I've got something for the long weekend...Easter here down under. We get Friday off, don't know if you do. My biggest concern was the timeline. If what I've been spouting was correct then to my understanding CONI and the UCI needed to go to CAS to make a charge/claim to the evidence and then enforce a ban if the data matched. This isn't what happened. If the Spanish authorities let CONI have the data then Valverde is gone. My issue was always the legality and timing, not whether he was guilty. His guilt was always a given.

If it turns out what I'd heard before is wrong (Serrano and Coni trading info) then I will have to ask some questions about all the sources that confirmed what I'd heard. Sounds like I might be asking some questions. For the record, most of my views were based on media reports. Doesn't seem like a good prospect. Either way, if Ricco can get a suspended ban and Basso can race whilst banned, I doubt Valverde will sit out two whole years. Not that his bank balance will be really hurt. You don't have a Ferrari in the garage and lack some spare change.

http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4073/5048/0/Sentence FINALE INTERNET _2010.03.16_.pdf

47 pages, all in French. I have forgotten more French then I remember but it is still an interesting read. Very detailed.

One thing I have always liked about CAS decisions is they go into very precise detail. The decision on Landis is one of the best dissecting of the case I have read.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Galic Ho said:
Hell no. Basso we all know won the Giro doped to the gills. His present ability reveals as much. Does that mean he is clean now? No.

I read the piece you wanted a few months back. Ask Icefire for it. I believe he posted a link a month or two back. When I first heard last year CONI had DNA evidence the first thing that hit me was how? I thought it was common knowledge Serrano had sealed all the physical evidence and closed the case...you know the public health aspect. As such my first thoughts were how could they have info? The Spanish weren't legally allowed to hand it out, so how did they get it? Icefire popped on here a month or two back and answered that for me. I assumed what I had read via the link was correct.

Travel forward to now and CAS agreed CONI had a right to the evidence. Valverde's lawyers think they are wrong. Who is right? CAS may have made an incorrect ruling. Considering my legal experience lies with Company, Contract and Taxation law then I will consider reading up on more CAS rulings...but I need to read their findings and check up on some things. This takes time. Legal reports are long and boring as all hell.

As for CONI saying they had permission for Serrano. Well if that is the case then Valverde is in big trouble. Do you have a link? I'm just trying to find balance and get an understanding for how everything has unfolded. Either way Valverde has played his hand well. Stall, then stall some more. In the meantime win as many races as he can. Considering he has a Ferrari or two in the garage, then he will

As for the Aussie riders I mentioned. Yes they don't have DNA in a blood bag mixed with EPO, but Rogers did visit Freidburg with T-Mobile in 06. My point was more or less that as an Aussie I hold no illusions they are cleaner and whiter than a priests bed linen. Gerrans takes trips to Colorado with Lance and Levi before the Tour. Why associate with riders who ride on the largely assumed, biggest doped up team in history? My point was to illustrate that I don't tow the line BlackCat refers to as "Anglophone" blindness and naivety.

Has anyone thought that it is more interesting and revealing that all the OP bad boys have never failed a drugs test?

The bolded above is why I continue to ask the question - what did the Italian Authorities do that is illegal?

It is also noteworthy that while you appear to be upholding the rights of someone who has been linked to a blood bag containing EPO sitting in a fridge of a gynecolgist with the name of a dog that he does not have and then talk about M.Rogers! Who being from Australia just went with his 'mates' to see what the local universitys were like.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
The bolded above is why I continue to ask the question - what did the Italian Authorities do that is illegal?

It is also noteworthy that while you appear to be upholding the rights of someone who has been linked to a blood bag containing EPO sitting in a fridge of a gynecolgist with the name of a dog that he does not have and then talk about M.Rogers! Who being from Australia just went with his 'mates' to see what the local universitys were like.

The Italian authorities did nothing illegal. The CAS verdict http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4073/5048/0/Sentence FINALE INTERNET _2010.03.16_.pdf goes to some length detaling why.
Italian police wanted evidence, asked for it politely through the proper channels, and got it. Pouch no. 18 was delivered as evidence in a criminal investigation instigated by the Italian police. Spain and Italy is bound by a convention of 1959 pertaining to the legal cooperation and submission of evidence across borders in criminal investigations.
Judge Serrano's later decision to revoke pouch no. 18 as evidence was clearly wrong as it was based on the assumption that it was CONI, and not the Italian police that was doing the investigation.

Valv-Piti will go down, eventually, but it'll take some time yet. The CAS verdict tells the story of a pathetic liar, trying any and every legal loophole, even ridiculous ones, such as making the claim that CONI had no right to examine the DNA-composition of the blood sample drawn from him in Italy in '08; according to him they could only look for the presence of illegal substances. Yet Valverde, by signing on the CONI form at the time of the blood-sample, in reality agreed that CONI could do whatever CONI deemed appropriate with it, which they duly did.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
The bolded above is why I continue to ask the question - what did the Italian Authorities do that is illegal?

It is also noteworthy that while you appear to be upholding the rights of someone who has been linked to a blood bag containing EPO sitting in a fridge of a gynecolgist with the name of a dog that he does not have and then talk about M.Rogers! Who being from Australia just went with his 'mates' to see what the local universitys were like.

I think he is more or less not on what he was a couple of years back. He has been under performing compared to 4-6 years back. The peloton dynamics and pecking order have changed, which explain part of Rogers drop in performances and also he has been sick at time.

As for CONI. Access evidence sealed by a Spanish Court. That is the bold part. They aren't Spanish. I've heard Icefire's explanation and also another one, that CONI used some back channels with Interpol to gain access to the evidence. I've heard multiple times last year from differing sources (check the old threads there will be a mention about them in there...though there are hundreds of posts to filter) that Serrano had closed the case. You cannot access evidence in another nation that was sealed by a judge without appropriate approval. That is the illegal aspect I have been mentioning. Is this correct. Well it now seems as if all my info regarding the illegality of CONI accessing this info was wrong, but I wouldn't have known as much until the CAS ruling. There has been no new info available.

Anyway thanks Dr and RR for clearing things up. I like having perspective and am more than willing to admit when I am wrong on aspects and present incorrect info.
 
Oct 27, 2009
133
0
0
Visit site
joe_papp said:
First comment on the post I made concerning Valverde elicited this response. When you think about it, if he was doping but then stopped, one might expect a drop in his form and subsequent race results - but that's not really happened. So the argument goes that he must be clean because if he was doping and almost caught he would have laid off the sauce and his results would have suffered. Way too many variables to control for there, plus at the end of the day isn't it his DNA in both the blood sample taken in Italy and the blood bag from Puerto (assuming intact chain of custody)?
I agree with you!Valverde's performance hasn't been changed/dropped.I just hope this matter will be resolved as soon as possible.
 
elapid said:
Not true - how many riders have been suspended from Operation Puerto? Three riders (Basso, Scarponi and Jaschke) and all three were suspended because they confessed to their involvement. No rider (or athlete from another sport) has been found guilty. What about the other 50-odd cyclists who were implicated and thus are all in Valverde's position? None of them have been investigated (by CONI, UCI or anyone else) and provisionally suspended. While I have no doubt regarding Valverde's guilt, this is a targeted witch hunt which ignores the ruling of higher powers (Spanish judiciary) and the involvement of the remaining riders implicated in Operation Puerto who continue to ride professionally.

I don't get your point. You have no doubt he's gulity, but because others were too, but haven't been punished and because the way the thing has been handled, Piti-Valve should not be sanctioned.

Well the world is certainly imperfect and justice may not be of this world, however, your rational is pretty lame.