Official Valverde thread.

[Parker]

As far as I understand. Valverde was banned, Contador was banned. The point is Froome & Wiggins were not banned yet still thrown under a bus by British media, but not Spanish media. Valverde & Contador the opposite and celebrated at the end of their careers regardless of doping. That is a cultural difference.
It's like when my cycling buddy goes off to his training camps in Spain. The spanish simply don't see doping as wrong much of the time. The ex pros and locals he trains with, simply see doping as acceptable and part of what cycling is and being a good rider is about, whereas I would argue France & Britain see it more like what cycling shouldn't be, especially the media and fans.

...to add to the confusion, you have the story of Tom Simpson, who has a shrine on Mt. Ventoux. He's seen as a tragic hero by both the Brits and the French. He even, as of 2013, has a magazine named after him.

There's a lot more to the Simpson death than just drugs though. A major reason was the limit of two bidons of water per stage at the time. That was probably every bit as much a reason. But it suited the organisers to push the 'drugs and nothing else' narrative.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

Yep, that golden Italian generation with Rebellin, Bettini, Simoni, Alessandro Petacchi, Stefano Garzelli, Leonardo Piepoli and Paolo Savoldelli was way better than that golden Spanish generation. And of course, that golden American generation with Armstrong, Leipheimer, Hincapie, Landis and Hamilton might have been tainted, but thank goodness we got some more trustworthy riders in the following generation with Vande Velde, Danielson and Zabriskie... [/sarcasm] we have to remember that these were the Spanish 'golden generation' because they were the ones that had to rebuild Spanish cycling after Puerto flushed away the preceding generation with Heras, Sevilla, Mancebo, Gil, Casero, Terminaitor and so on. There's also five years' age gap between Samu and Alberto, you may as well throw Sastre and Mosquera in there too. And Cobo too, he's older than Contador.

Besides, what does Purito have to do to merit a mention alongside them, Rusty?

This post completely ignores the context of Woods comments.

The context hadn't been provided at the time I posted that. As it stood, it seemed like a selective rundown of successful Spanish riders of the era, focusing on three who have been among the most successful (Contador and Valverde undoubtedly, I think you can make a case for at least Purito over Samu) but ignoring a number of riders who've been part of that generation, some of whom have tested positive or been suspended (Barredo), not tested positive but been named in various goings-on (Luísle, Moreno), or neither but have nevertheless reason to suspect them (Purito, Cobo).

Amazing....the clinic now wants context

While many posters in the Clinic are quick to jump to conclusions, sure, you don't think that the context is kind of important on this occasion? That it is kind of a major factor to know that Woods didn't say this in the heat of defeat on Sunday? Essentially, a selective quoting of Woods without context or explanation of when or why he said this was introduced into a thread in a discussion of the reactions to Valverde's Worlds triumph, context is deliberately withheld, and then provided as a stick to beat posters with for jumping to conclusions, when they are only able to judge based on the limited information provided, with key information that would affect those conclusions wilfully obscured.

This is like the Íñigo San Millán thing all over again. Vaughters attacked people in the Clinic for not knowing the full facts about San Millán - but that is because that information was deliberately withheld. It's a clever debating trick to belittle the opposition and perpetuate a position that they are uninformed and jump to conclusions. That may not be an unfair criticism much of the time regardless, but nevertheless here it's being perpetuated by underhand means. Similar to when Parker paints their pictures insulting "a certain type of poster" that clearly is designed to put either a specific individual or group of individuals in mind, knowing that they can't react without conflating themselves with the negative connotations of the post. "Look how crazy the Clinic is being now!"

 

[King Boonen]

His legacy will be tainted by the non-admission and denial in my mind. It's obviously too late now even if he wanted to repair all the damage he caused cycling. He will remembered by many as a great bike rider, but who never redeemed himself, just like Contador in may ways.

Take Michael Woods recent comments to the media:
"You only talk about the golden generation - Valverde, Contador, Sanchez. Valverde was Busted in Operation Peurto, Contador a positive test and now Sammy Sanchez. Golden Generation? You know, I wish these guys would just disappear"!

A google search turns up one source for that quote. This post.

While I mostly agree with hrotha, I'll second the above requests for a source before I believe Woods said it.

The source is Richard Moore (to whom the words were spoken - originally off the record) in the post Worlds episode of the Cycling Podcast. It was previously published in their end of year book (with Woods's permission)

Always makes me laugh when people think everything is on google, like books don't exist or something?

Important to add, Woods said all this long before Worlds this year, it's not a reaction to Valverde beating him.

How long exactly? Because the use of the word "recent" clearly implies a discussion around the time of the WRRC, either before or after. The sue of the phrase "comments to the media" also implies an on the record discussion that people would rightly assume turns up in re-used content on a couple of cycling sites. This seems to be, purposefully, incredibly misleading.

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

Amazing....the clinic now wants context

And for riders to speak out about dopers, except if it's one of their favourites

While that same riders successfully holds the wheel of that same dopers throughout the hardest races
Imo, he'd be better to keep quiet, along with Gaimon and other saints...

 

[Bolder]

Re: Re:

Amazing....the clinic now wants context

And for riders to speak out about dopers, except if it's one of their favourites

While that same riders successfully holds the wheel of that same dopers throughout the hardest races
Imo, he'd be better to keep quiet, along with Gaimon and other saints...

Why do you think that? Who was the last full-throated "anti doper" to subsequently be busted? (not in the court of public opinion, but actually sanctioned?). Seems to me if you know you're innocent you have not just a right but an obligation to proclaim that. I just don't understand why half the Clinic seems to think omerta is a good thing.

(now, of course that there haven't been many riders willing to stick their neck out, even in half hearted way, is probably ipso facto evidence that there aren't any saints, or that the penalties for breaking the omerta are just as harsh as they were when Lance was administering mid-race beat downs... what a mess.)

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

Amazing....the clinic now wants context

And for riders to speak out about dopers, except if it's one of their favourites

While that same riders successfully holds the wheel of that same dopers throughout the hardest races
Imo, he'd be better to keep quiet, along with Gaimon and other saints...

Why do you think that? Who was the last full-throated "anti doper" to subsequently be busted? (not in the court of public opinion, but actually sanctioned?). Seems to me if you know you're innocent you have not just a right but an obligation to proclaim that. I just don't understand why half the Clinic seems to think omerta is a good thing.

(now, of course that there haven't been many riders willing to stick their neck out, even in half hearted way, is probably ipso facto evidence that there aren't any saints, or that the penalties for breaking the omerta are just as harsh as they were when Lance was administering mid-race beat downs... what a mess.)

Does Wiggins, Froome ring any bells?

 

[King Boonen]

Mod hat on:

This is the Valverde thread, please don't go off topic.

Cheers,

KB.

 

[KyoGrey]

Re: Re:

How exactly did he "damage cycling"?

He/his team damaged cycling because you can't un-rob the bank. You can however put your hands up and attempt to give the money back. Neither of which Valverde did at the time or ever will.
It's a cultural thing though. You have Wiggins & Froome thrown under a bus by English & French media for things nobody knows a thing about and still don't, then in the same year, Spanish media physically crying in happiness on live TV to millions of watchers when an unrepentant ex-doper who denied doing anything wrong despite DNA matching his blood wins one of cycling's biggest races at 38. Woods opinion on Valverde, I thought was a nice contrast that's all. I'm sure his opinion wouldn't change even if he rode for Movistar.

This smells of pretentious moralism with fine touches of supremacism.

Spain sporting culture is not an example of anything, but thank god we don't have to cope with the levels of hypocresy displayed during late cycling history by all this anglosaxon bigotry.

As far as I'm concerned Valverde dopes as does 100% (or 99%) of the peloton. Welcome to the real world.

He hasn't tested positive but has served a 2-years ban. He has consistently been great during multiple eras.

Other people have tested positive, have been redeemed by UCI-mafia and whats worse: progress from nowhere in the peloton to win GT's all around the calendar with any the rider they choose.


At least have a little bit of decency when talking about other's countries cultures and so on...

 

[roundabout]

well, duh

he has been high-level doping since at least 2004, so no *** that he has been consistent

and with it being the 'real world' as you put it, there is no need to pass judgement on what is 'worse' in the world where 99% of people allegedly dope

unless of course you would want to also be a hypocrite and attempt to use other people to make Valverde's doping seem acceptable

 

[KyoGrey]

Not more or less acceptable than with other cyclings or pro athletes.

Since the introduction of the huge distortions by blood doping in the late 80's (and whatever is now on top of that) the bar as to what is acceptable and unacceptable is more related with coherent career trayectories vs ludicrous appearances & big changes in performance.

And of course the notion that in Spain there is a notably worse doping culture than in Britain or the USA is just ****.

USA has been the doping powerhouse since forever and Britain is top division since the program implemented in approach to the 2012 Olympics.

I wonder what the reactions would be if this type of things were said on the other way...

 

[gillan1969]

whilst the term omerta gets used a lot with its mafiosa connetations perhaps a more apt description with the magicians code or magic circle...we all know the magic is not real...but we suspend believe to marvel at it...the magicians don't tell us how they do it, iit goes against the code.....everyone is in on it.....don't ruin the magic

hopefully not off topic...but this, in Valverde's approach, is at odds with other 'newer teams' who have sought to tell the public that the magic is in fact real

that's perhaps why Valverde gets cut some slack from some quarters

 

[roundabout]

nice try, but again it's not a Sky thread however much you are obsessed with them...

and you are wrong

After that, I’ve undergone a thousand antidoping tests and won a thousand races. I was a great rider before the ban and I’ve been even better after it. I think nobody doubts my performances anymore.

'Magic is real' here as well, except some people prefer not to give a ***, or twist themselves into pretzels trying to make Valverde seem different

 

[roundabout]

Re:

Not more or less acceptable than with other cyclings or pro athletes.

Since the introduction of the huge distortions by blood doping in the late 80's (and whatever is now on top of that) the bar as to what is acceptable and unacceptable is more related with coherent career trayectories vs ludicrous appearances & big changes in performance.

And of course the notion that in Spain there is a notably worse doping culture than in Britain or the USA is just ****.

USA has been the doping powerhouse since forever and Britain is top division since the program implemented in approach to the 2012 Olympics.

I wonder what the reactions would be if this type of things were said on the other way...

Valverde has very likely been doping all his pro career, so again don't give me this *** about 'coherent career trajectories'

And the fact that you again decided to write about ludicrous appearances, changes in performance etc shows that you can't help yourself regardless of your first sentence.

 

[Blanco]

If Valverde is still doping (which is very likely), then all those "clean champions" who are droping him in the high mountains are doing the same, if not worse (also very likely). I don't believe a second, that a clean rider can keep a wheel with a full-doped Alejandro Valverde, or even drop him

 

[hrotha]

At some point, the gazillion-year-old doper who was never among the best in the high mountains in the first place should start getting dropped by hypothetical clean contenders.

 

[Angliru]

Re:

At some point, the gazillion-year-old doper who was never among the best in the high mountains in the first place should start getting dropped by hypothetical clean contenders.

He has always been either among the best or just below. To say "never among the best" is pretty much just lying. How does a rider get multiple grand tour podiums, including a Tour podium, being mediocre versus the clock, be never among the best in the high mountains? Never is quite broad a brush, maybe not often or seldom would be more accurate from your perspective? How could a rider with such limitations as you mention still reach the podium of the Giro in the latter stage of his career?

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

At some point, the gazillion-year-old doper who was never among the best in the high mountains in the first place should start getting dropped by hypothetical clean contenders.

He has always been either among the best or just below. To say "never among the best" is pretty much just lying. How does a rider get multiple grand tour podiums, including a Tour podium, being mediocre versus the clock, be never among the best in the high mountains? Never is quite broad a brush, maybe not often or seldom would be more accurate from your perspective? How could a rider with such limitations as you mention still reach the podium of the Giro in the latter stage of his career?

It depends on your definition of 'best'. Valverde has never dominated GTs in the mountains, nor has he ever had really outstanding climbing displays in the high mountains in the GTs over the years.

He's been close in GTs when there was no outstanding climbers, and when there was, Valverde got dropped in the high mountains when those riders brought down the hammer.

But the hypothesis that Valverde at some point should be getting dropped by hypothetical clean riders is true, but it shouldn't apply to a 38 year old by any stretch of the imagination.

The real issue would be that Valverde probably doped a lot harder early in his career than the current younger riders, and there's no way of knowing what the residual effect of that is.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

At some point, the gazillion-year-old doper who was never among the best in the high mountains in the first place should start getting dropped by hypothetical clean contenders.

He has always been either among the best or just below. To say "never among the best" is pretty much just lying. How does a rider get multiple grand tour podiums, including a Tour podium, being mediocre versus the clock, be never among the best in the high mountains? Never is quite broad a brush, maybe not often or seldom would be more accurate from your perspective? How could a rider with such limitations as you mention still reach the podium of the Giro in the latter stage of his career?

It depends on your definition of 'best'. Valverde has never dominated GTs in the mountains, nor has he ever had really outstanding climbing displays in the high mountains in the GTs over the years.

He's been close in GTs when there was no outstanding climbers, and when there was, Valverde got dropped in the high mountains when those riders brought down the hammer.

But the hypothesis that Valverde at some point should be getting dropped by hypothetical clean riders is true, but it shouldn't apply to a 38 year old by any stretch of the imagination.

The real issue would be that Valverde probably doped a lot harder early in his career than the current younger riders, and there's no way of knowing what the residual effect of that is.

Not sure that is the real issue. If the early-career high level of doping gives a significant long term peformance advantage, then you would have seen loads more riders of Valverde's generation and age still tearing up the peloton in the past few years. But he's basically the only one.

 

[Blanco]

Re:

At some point, the gazillion-year-old doper who was never among the best in the high mountains in the first place should start getting dropped by hypothetical clean contenders.

Not sure if the rider who won on Envalira, La Pandera, Morredero, Lagunas de Neila, Courchevel, Peyragudes, Arrate, Collada de la Gallina, Cumbres Verdes, La Molina, Jebel Hafeet was never among the best in the high mountains

 

[hrotha]

Lol at the long string of Vuelta unipuertos as if they said anything about anyone's potential in the high mountains.

Anyway, no, Valverde was never among the best, unless you're using "the best" to mean "GC contenders". In which case, fair enough, but don't get up in arms when someone is clearly using different criteria. Remember, the context was Valverde getting dropped by other riders in the mountains. The best Valverde was still dropped by other riders in the mountains. Regularly.

And anyway number 2, the point stands. Maybe focus on that?

 

[Blanco]

Re:

Lol at the long string of Vuelta unipuertos as if they said anything about anyone's potential in the high mountains.

Anyway, no, Valverde was never among the best, unless you're using "the best" to mean "GC contenders". In which case, fair enough, but don't get up in arms when someone is clearly using different criteria. Remember, the context was Valverde getting dropped by other riders in the mountains. The best Valverde was still dropped by other riders in the mountains. Regularly.

And anyway number 2, the point stands. Maybe focus on that?

So name another rider who like Valverde was never among the best in mountains yet won as half as he on that same mountains?

The truth is, he was always among the best in the mountains, otherwise he would not be able to reach 8 GT podiums! Never the best (ok maybe once or twice - Vuelta 2009, 2006), but always among the very best.

 

[Red Rick]

Semantics, semantics, semantics.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[The Hitch]

As far as I understand. Valverde was banned, Contador was banned. The point is Froome & Wiggins were not banned yet still thrown under a bus by British media, but not Spanish media. Valverde & Contador the opposite and celebrated at the end of their careers regardless of doping. That is a cultural difference.
It's like when my cycling buddy goes off to his training camps in Spain. The spanish simply don't see doping as wrong much of the time. The ex pros and locals he trains with, simply see doping as acceptable and part of what cycling is and being a good rider is about, whereas I would argue France & Britain see it more like what cycling shouldn't be, especially the media and fans.

The poster knows the above is not true. That brit oficialy caught dopers do not get attacked by the media and on the contrary get defended and their crimes ignored.

But posts it anyway just to get responses.

Sigh.

 

[samhocking]

You know it's true. Spanish & Italian media wwere generally not that bothered about Froome or Wiggins, UK & French media were all over it every day like a rash. Lets not forget who broke Wiggins & Froome's stories. It was over every tabloid for heavens sake in both Countries, both times a joint effort to expose too!
There is a doping culture difference between France & UK and Spain & Italy when it comes to doping attitudes. I'm hardly the first to say it, it's been said by pretty much every serious cycling commentator for years now!

 

[brownbobby]

As far as I understand. Valverde was banned, Contador was banned. The point is Froome & Wiggins were not banned yet still thrown under a bus by British media, but not Spanish media. Valverde & Contador the opposite and celebrated at the end of their careers regardless of doping. That is a cultural difference.
It's like when my cycling buddy goes off to his training camps in Spain. The spanish simply don't see doping as wrong much of the time. The ex pros and locals he trains with, simply see doping as acceptable and part of what cycling is and being a good rider is about, whereas I would argue France & Britain see it more like what cycling shouldn't be, especially the media and fans.

The poster knows the above is not true. That brit oficialy caught dopers do not get attacked by the media and on the contrary get defended and their crimes ignored.

But posts it anyway just to get responses.

Sigh.

Crimes ignored??

What nonsense.....as an example, did you read many of the UK tabloids reporting on Yates Vuelta win. I guess not, because they devoted more words to reminding everyone about the ban he'd served for the Asthma meds issue, than they did actually talking about the GT win.

Same with Thomas and the TDF, because they had nothing doping related to attribute to Thomas personally, nearly every article supposedly reporting on his win had lengthy reference to his connections with Froome/Wiggins/Sky and all the doping associated insinuations.

You might think that's all justified, maybe it is, but to state as fact that Brits (media) ignore dopoing crimes is laughable.