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

[blackcat]

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.

my concern was matching the blood by CONI. Do they have the legal right to get a DNA match on the blood samples, under their law. Does not requiring a DNA sample, atleast require some threshold of criminality (murder, assault, rape) that doping, albeit criminal under Italian statute, would certainly not breach.

 

[rhubroma]

my concern was matching the blood by CONI. Do they have the legal right to get a DNA match on the blood samples, under their law. Does not requiring a DNA sample, atleast require some threshold of criminality (murder, assault, rape) that doping, albeit criminal under Italian statute, would certainly not breach.

TAS has said yes. The problem here, as it has always been, is Spain, not Italy.

 

[blackcat]

TAS has said yes. The problem here, as it has always been, is Spain, not Italy.

but Spain had released Ullrich and Basso's blood previously, so I am failing to see the problem there. Once CONI have the blood, are they all to cross match DNA. I appreciate they did that, but does a WADA statute allow them to? I assume so. Otherwise, Valverde's lawyers would have had a case for injunction and prevented it.

I won't be losing sleep over Valv, certainly no pity.

 

[luckyboy]

I won't be losing sleep over Valv, certainly no Piti.

There you go

 

[rhubroma]

but Spain had released Ullrich and Basso's blood previously, so I am failing to see the problem there. Once CONI have the blood, are they all to cross match DNA. I appreciate they did that, but does a WADA statute allow them to? I assume so. Otherwise, Valverde's lawyers would have had a case for injunction and prevented it.

I won't be losing sleep over Valv, certainly no pity.

And that was the problem from the outset, because by releasing non-nationalists' blood, but not any compatriots, because politically there wasn't the will to create a law at the time and make it retro-active to see justice done, Spain, effectively, and quite scandalously, covered up for its own athletes, while a few foreigners got to take the fall for everyone.

Itlay persued the matter relative to its own territory, even if involving a foreign rider (just as Spain had essentially done by releasing a German's and an Italian's blood), which created an issue of juristicion that TAS has now approved: namely that a nation can sanction any athlete within its own territory for breaking the rules stipulated by the same nation.

The real scandal, behind every scandal, in this case of course, is that Spain did not have a law making doping a crime within its territory when OP broke out. Given the international awarness of the doping problem in sport and the measures to internationally fight it, such an absence speaks directly of an ethical shortcoming on the part of Spain that was simply intollerable and disgusting, especially when that nation allowed several foreign athletes by releasing their OP sacks to either serve bans or else to be effectively driven into retirement.

Had TAS not supported Italy, the already feable anti-doping war would have been sent right to the grave.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

And that was the problem from the outset, because by releasing non-nationalists' blood, but not any compatriots, because politically there wasn't the will to create a law at the time and make it retro-active to see justice done, Spain, effectively, and quite scandalously, covered up for its own athletes, while a few foreigners got to take the fall for everyone.

Itlay persued the matter relative to its own territory, even if involving a foreign rider (just as Spain had essentially done by releasing a German's and an Italian's blood), which created an issue of juristicion that TAS has now approved: namely that a nation can sanction any athlete within its own territory for breaking the rules stipulated by the same nation.

The real scandal, behind every scandal, in this case of course, is that Spain did not have a law making doping a crime within its territory when OP broke out. Given the international awarness of the doping problem in sport and the measures to internationally fight it, such an absence speaks directly of an ethical shortcoming on the part of Spain that was simply intollerable and disgusting, especially when that nation allowed several foreign athletes by releasing their OP sacks to either serve bans or else to be effectively driven into retirement.

Had TAS not supported Italy, the already feable anti-doping war would have been sent right to the grave.

Ok, not trying to lay it on Spain too heavy but what of Valverde's team? Keeping him in employ, parading him around, winning races, just flaunting the whole thing. Makes one consider a true imbalance in ethical equity among that specific locality. How "provincial" of them.

I really don't care what the general thought is as to Valverde's talent level or class, his behaviour is highly dislikable.

 

[blackcat]

Ok, not trying to lay it on Spain too heavy but what of Valverde's team? Keeping him in employ, parading him around, winning races, just flaunting the whole thing. Makes one consider a true imbalance in ethical equity among that specific locality. How "provincial" of them.

I really don't care what the general thought is as to Valverde's talent level or class, his behaviour is highly dislikable.

make the same case for Armstrong tho. And for Frank Schleck. Even Contador, with his ties to Fuentes.

Ofcourse, these riders are no different to other riders who have yet to be implicated to their preparatore.

Another blackcat maxim:
There are two types of riders. Those implicated in doping, and those yet to be implicated.

Zing!

 

[rhubroma]

Ok, not trying to lay it on Spain too heavy but what of Valverde's team? Keeping him in employ, parading him around, winning races, just flaunting the whole thing. Makes one consider a true imbalance in ethical equity among that specific locality. How "provincial" of them.

I really don't care what the general thought is as to Valverde's talent level or class, his behaviour is highly dislikable.

It also demonstrates how spineless the UCI is and how it only thinks of profit until otherwise necessary not to.

 

[Neworld]

Leave Valverde alone please. Even if he doped in the past, he's not using right now. So.... they better spent their time and efforts more wisely on important cases. It's just not fair that Valverde is the only OP victim, they have no proof. ( yes a bloodbag saying valv piti)

You know it's very clear, and riders like LL and even Conta really know what's going on. Valverde is the scapegoat.

I think you're forgetting Ullrich.

Please, "leave AV alone". Look at his past mate, look at the dirty teams and coaches he has been on and associated with. AV is as bad as any doper in cycling. The old methodology to figure out his innocence applies here. Why doesn't AV submit his blood for DNA analysis from the OP bags labelled Piti? Why not? If the DNA is not a match I will recant my comments. But if he is so innocent why not do this, clear his name in 1 week and get back to cycling? Because he's a megadoper that is why. He's a liar and has won countless important races and GTs since OP, and before. What a sham. Good bye and don't come back.

NW

 

[Colm.Murphy]

make the same case for Armstrong tho. And for Frank Schleck. Even Contador, with his ties to Fuentes.

Ofcourse, these riders are no different to other riders who have yet to be implicated to their preparatore.

Another blackcat maxim:
There are two types of riders. Those implicated in doping, and those yet to be implicated.

Zing!

I think you and I agree on most things. I really get no joy or any real "justice" from seeing these blokes get whacked. I think they simply don't/can't apply the "justice" with equity, for obvious economic reasons, and they do it with the layers of nationalism, ego and vanity piled on top.

With Valverde, it reveals the wayward sense of duty of the UCI, as rhubroma keenly points out, and their invariable lack of ethics and integrity.

Valverde has ****ed right on the heads of everyone, while debating whether the evidence that righteously and emphatically indicates his guilt is "illegal"?

putrid.

I do expect more to fall and for this sport to implode like grenade held too long.

 

[Neworld]

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.[/QUOTE]

I like your elementary logic, I really do and I agree with it. So what does that say about rider(s) who have dominated the TdF in that last 10 yrs?

NW

 

[blackcat]

I do expect more to fall and for this sport to implode like grenade held too long.

hmmm, but someone gotta pull the pin.

The pin is still "IN" vested interests, not gonna pull it, and blow the roof.

You have l'Equipe, and surely they know more there, but usually only whack Armstrong, for reasons more than just nationality, but surely the nationalism, and his abrasive persona, does inform that function.

Someone on l'Equipe could blow it big. And other papers. But apart from a tabloid in Bild, no one else really pursues the matter. Armstrong, for all his legal threats of litigation, is an easy mark. It is all on the table. It is pretty gutless for Walsh, to only go Armstrong. He could take on the sport, with alot more context, then give the UCI a mandate to clean it up, and clean their own house.

The vested interests, and the media, are about building up the myth. Occasionally, they break a block down, but it is a jenga tower, that never falls. It is only a scapegoat like Vino, or Ricco, or Landis, who takes the fall for the sport. A few bad apples.

And if it is not the media, who will blow the lid? There is no one. And when you have Sarkozy making close ties to Armstrong, does it really show the political will to have the police intercept motorbike panniers with refrigerated blood? Won't happen.

Will need another Tom Simpson, before the lid is lifted for all to see.

 

[Hugh Januss]

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.

I like your elementary logic, I really do and I agree with it. So what does that say about rider(s) who have dominated the TdF in that last 10 yrs?

NW[/QUOTE]

You need to ask?

 

[blackcat]

I like your elementary logic, I really do and I agree with it. So what does that say about rider(s) who have dominated the TdF in that last 10 yrs?

NW

You need to ask?[/QUOTE]
if you wanna talk in degrees, I dont reckon Evans is AS dirty. I would put him in the "recovery therapy" echelon.

Now, you see some guys, who were mediocre jnrs and espoirs, then hit on a good program that worked for them. Some just go off the charts when on the transfusions.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You need to ask?

if you wanna talk in degrees, I dont reckon Evans is AS dirty. I would put him in the "recovery therapy" echelon.

Now, you see some guys, who were mediocre jnrs and espoirs, then hit on a good program that worked for them. Some just go off the charts when on the transfusions.[/QUOTE]

Yeah true, but it's still really all the same. Doping is doping, taking drugs that are prohibited. Whether they are cheating a lot or a little it is still the same thing. Just because they aren't on the full program doesn't mean they are only cheating a little bit. It probably means they don't have the money or don't want to spend the money or are afraid they might get caught.

Edit: Why has this quote thing gotten all jacked up?

 

[blackcat]

if you wanna talk in degrees, I dont reckon Evans is AS dirty. I would put him in the "recovery therapy" echelon.

Now, you see some guys, who were mediocre jnrs and espoirs, then hit on a good program that worked for them. Some just go off the charts when on the transfusions.

Yeah true, but it's still really all the same. Doping is doping, taking drugs that are prohibited. Whether they are cheating a lot or a little it is still the same thing. Just because they aren't on the full program doesn't mean they are only cheating a little bit. It probably means they don't have the money or don't want to spend the money or are afraid they might get caught.

Edit: Why has this quote thing gotten all jacked up?[/QUOTE]
yeah, so, it is not about degrees. You cannot take a hit of hgh in recovery from your broken clavicle. It is still doping.

I qualified it.

The quote thing. Well, someone stuffed up, at the start, and no one could be stuffed editing, and it kept replicating because of an errant [ / q u o t e ] code.

 

[Hugh Januss]

yeah, so, it is not about degrees. You cannot take a hit of hgh in recovery from your broken clavicle. It is still doping.

I qualified it.

The quote thing. Well, someone stuffed up, at the start, and no one could be stuffed editing, and it kept replicating because of an errant code.

If they ever got the rest under control (fat chance) I could see TUE for healing aids.
I had to fix that shit it was driving me bats.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

hmmm, but someone gotta pull the pin.

The pin is still "IN" vested interests, not gonna pull it, and blow the roof.

You have l'Equipe, and surely they know more there, but usually only whack Armstrong, for reasons more than just nationality, but surely the nationalism, and his abrasive persona, does inform that function.

Someone on l'Equipe could blow it big. And other papers. But apart from a tabloid in Bild, no one else really pursues the matter. Armstrong, for all his legal threats of litigation, is an easy mark. It is all on the table. It is pretty gutless for Walsh, to only go Armstrong. He could take on the sport, with alot more context, then give the UCI a mandate to clean it up, and clean their own house.

The vested interests, and the media, are about building up the myth. Occasionally, they break a block down, but it is a jenga tower, that never falls. It is only a scapegoat like Vino, or Ricco, or Landis, who takes the fall for the sport. A few bad apples.

And if it is not the media, who will blow the lid? There is no one. And when you have Sarkozy making close ties to Armstrong, does it really show the political will to have the police intercept motorbike panniers with refrigerated blood? Won't happen.

Will need another Tom Simpson, before the lid is lifted for all to see.

Yes, you are right. Though, like with Voet, it could just be an unlucky moment, a sloppy decision, etc.

I do agree that there is probably zero chance of a "Top Down" expose from the journalism-world.

Or, it could be a Simpson-esque scene, rider collapses, or rider dies in sleep, or rider strokes out, or riders get sick enmass...

I can only point to the most recent super of superstars to get cracked - Tiger.

Not saying it is a sure thing, or even will happen, just saying it is possible.

 

[blackcat]

Yes, you are right. Though, like with Voet, it could just be an unlucky moment, a sloppy decision, etc.

I do agree that there is probably zero chance of a "Top Down" expose from the journalism-world.

Or, it could be a Simpson-esque scene, rider collapses, or rider dies in sleep, or rider strokes out, or riders get sick enmass...

I can only point to the most recent super of superstars to get cracked - Tiger.

Not saying it is a sure thing, or even will happen, just saying it is possible.

I reckon they can restrict and compartmentalize damage from a police interception.

I think they can handle a rider in dying in their sleep. Nolf and Salanson. Would need to be one of the top 10 riders, with a partner or wife who would be the shrew to tell the world.

The only thing they could not handle, would be a big name dying on the road, with the France 1 tv cameras broadcasting internationally.

 

[Galic Ho]

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.

I like your elementary logic, I really do and I agree with it. So what does that say about rider(s) who have dominated the TdF in that last 10 yrs?

NW

Ok, bad use of quotes by you, but that isn't important. But that was from a post I made. Elementary logic. Explain, because you flung the term out there but gave no explanation. Not that it bothers me I'd just like to figure out why you used it. Yes it is basic, but appropriate for the point I was suggesting. All those riders, Aussies, have been big names in cycling from my home nation, especially at the Tour.

To answer your question...It says nothing good. Evans is one of those riders. Hence I used him as an example. Easy pickings, plus because I am an Aussie I know people turn a blind eye to their national sporting heroes. Who is the biggest rider from Canada? Ryder Heyjedal? You can see why I didn't choose him or worse, a Spaniard or American. Evans was the perfect fit because most people here "KNOW" that certain Yanks and Spanish riders are just like Valverde. They are cut from the same cloth.

 

[Galic Ho]

if you wanna talk in degrees, I dont reckon Evans is AS dirty. I would put him in the "recovery therapy" echelon.

Now, you see some guys, who were mediocre jnrs and espoirs, then hit on a good program that worked for them. Some just go off the charts when on the transfusions.

Valverde was a gun youth rider though. In a dream world where PEDs are never used, would he still not be winning? Evans is similar. They have always been good.Hence for them to be equal now, or close enough I think they are doing the same things more or less. Why? Degree of performance. Deficits and troughs, versus surplus and highs. In your posts BlackCat you have made it very clear Wigans in your opinion was on recovery in 2009, but will go the whole hog this year. But he was in 3rd! Evans was 2nd the two years prior! That means everyone but the winners in 2007 and 2008, could not beat Evans on a smaller recovery program.

My next thought is why wouldn't Garmin want him then? Do the math and balance it out. That kind of performance on a smaller recovery program means Evans is literally a cycling monster, because more than the two guys in front of him were using a recovery program, thus to beat these riders using less pick ups means you are naturally at a whole other level. Most people here won't believe that, least of all about Evans. I think it is a mistake to misjudge and compare some rider in the final week of a GT. Some like Samu get stronger. Lance in 2009 and Levi in 2007 were both stronger in the final week. What I think is the telling difference is the sophistication and timing of the top ups. Bruyneels boys do more and push the envelope harder. Maybe they have protection in the UCI and ASO, or maybe Ferrari really is a genius. I also see a correlation between the benefits of a medical program and a riders natural intellect. The smarter boys seem to be better in the final weeks. Perhaps they listen to their body more and know when to top up. Which means I am suggesting Evans is not the smartest tool in the workshop.

Who were you thinking of that was mediocre as a junior? Kohl? Rasmussen? Valverde and Evans don't really fit the bill as I said. Some guys do pop up and go bananas but have they ever been (for an extended period) better than either of these two guys? Evans, Valverde and Contador have been for the last 4 years the most consistent stage racers. The UCI rankings show as much...which I take as just a general rule/guide and not a definitive rule.

 

[blackcat]

Valverde was a gun youth rider though. In a dream world where PEDs are never used, would he still not be winning? Evans is similar. They have always been good.Hence for them to be equal now, or close enough I think they are doing the same things more or less. Why? Degree of performance. Deficits and troughs, versus surplus and highs. In your posts BlackCat you have made it very clear Wigans in your opinion was on recovery in 2009, but will go the whole hog this year. But he was in 3rd! Evans was 2nd the two years prior! That means everyone but the winners in 2007 and 2008, could not beat Evans on a smaller recovery program.

My next thought is why wouldn't Garmin want him then? Do the math and balance it out. That kind of performance on a smaller recovery program means Evans is literally a cycling monster, because more than the two guys in front of him were using a recovery program, thus to beat these riders using less pick ups means you are naturally at a whole other level. Most people here won't believe that, least of all about Evans. I think it is a mistake to misjudge and compare some rider in the final week of a GT. Some like Samu get stronger. Lance in 2009 and Levi in 2007 were both stronger in the final week. What I think is the telling difference is the sophistication and timing of the top ups. Bruyneels boys do more and push the envelope harder. Maybe they have protection in the UCI and ASO, or maybe Ferrari really is a genius. I also see a correlation between the benefits of a medical program and a riders natural intellect. The smarter boys seem to be better in the final weeks. Perhaps they listen to their body more and know when to top up. Which means I am suggesting Evans is not the smartest tool in the workshop.

Who were you thinking of that was mediocre as a junior? Kohl? Rasmussen? Valverde and Evans don't really fit the bill as I said. Some guys do pop up and go bananas but have they ever been (for an extended period) better than either of these two guys? Evans, Valverde and Contador have been for the last 4 years the most consistent stage racers. The UCI rankings show as much...which I take as just a general rule/guide and not a definitive rule.

On Wiggins, you have me wrong. I thought he was boosted before, and got one intra Tour bag. But no real recovery help. Just slip out of the team hotel on the rest day, no one misses you.

I am putting my money where my mouth is, and laying Wiggins for the podium this year, I think he will come thru for me.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Valverde was a gun youth rider though. In a dream world where PEDs are never used, would he still not be winning? Evans is similar. They have always been good.Hence for them to be equal now, or close enough I think they are doing the same things more or less. Why? Degree of performance. Deficits and troughs, versus surplus and highs. In your posts BlackCat you have made it very clear Wigans in your opinion was on recovery in 2009, but will go the whole hog this year. But he was in 3rd! Evans was 2nd the two years prior! That means everyone but the winners in 2007 and 2008, could not beat Evans on a smaller recovery program.

My next thought is why wouldn't Garmin want him then? Do the math and balance it out. That kind of performance on a smaller recovery program means Evans is literally a cycling monster, because more than the two guys in front of him were using a recovery program, thus to beat these riders using less pick ups means you are naturally at a whole other level. Most people here won't believe that, least of all about Evans. I think it is a mistake to misjudge and compare some rider in the final week of a GT. Some like Samu get stronger. Lance in 2009 and Levi in 2007 were both stronger in the final week. What I think is the telling difference is the sophistication and timing of the top ups. Bruyneels boys do more and push the envelope harder. Maybe they have protection in the UCI and ASO, or maybe Ferrari really is a genius. I also see a correlation between the benefits of a medical program and a riders natural intellect. The smarter boys seem to be better in the final weeks. Perhaps they listen to their body more and know when to top up. Which means I am suggesting Evans is not the smartest tool in the workshop.

Who were you thinking of that was mediocre as a junior? Kohl? Rasmussen? Valverde and Evans don't really fit the bill as I said. Some guys do pop up and go bananas but have they ever been (for an extended period) better than either of these two guys? Evans, Valverde and Contador have been for the last 4 years the most consistent stage racers. The UCI rankings show as much...which I take as just a general rule/guide and not a definitive rule.

Don't you go accusing my Cadel of Drugs!

may I ask something to you all. How many of you think all top riders are on drugs/doping?

 

[blackcat]

Kohl, Rasmussen, Frank Schleck, Levi. Those guys. I dont rate.

Kohl said he would have won the Tour had he got the last transfusion in, that coagulated in the tube.

 

[Cerberus]

Don't you go accusing my Cadel of Drugs!

may I ask something to you all. How many of you think all top riders are on drugs/doping?

I believe that. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am (obviously).