• 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!

Official Valverde thread.

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I get the impression that Valverde is one of those riders who would have dominated everything with or without doping. He has a base level that other dopers have to peak (in addition to their doping) just to get to. His rounded power profile is something that doping can only accentuate; doping alone can't suddenly give an aerobic diesel the ability to sprint or put out incredible anaerobic power - you have to have some kind of existing fast twitch fibres and natural ability. Plus his record as a junior suggests he's not solely some kind of mutant super-responder - unless he was doping since he was about 10.

He can probably feel slightly hard done by that he grew up in an era where doping was necessary.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Visit site
Re:

DFA123 said:
I get the impression that Valverde is one of those riders who would have dominated everything with or without doping. He has a base level that other dopers have to peak (in addition to their doping) just to get to. His rounded power profile is something that doping can only accentuate; doping alone can't suddenly give an aerobic diesel the ability to sprint or put out incredible anaerobic power - you have to have some kind of existing fast twitch fibres and natural ability. Plus his record as a junior suggests he's not solely some kind of mutant super-responder - unless he was doping since he was about 10.

He can probably feel slightly hard done by that he grew up in an era where doping was necessary.

Lol, without doping Valverde would have been nowhere. He's a mediocre climber without the correct stuff. He's certainly not clean now.

Cycling at the junior ranks is dirty as *** as well. Just ask Squinzi.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
DFA123 said:
I get the impression that Valverde is one of those riders who would have dominated everything with or without doping. He has a base level that other dopers have to peak (in addition to their doping) just to get to. His rounded power profile is something that doping can only accentuate; doping alone can't suddenly give an aerobic diesel the ability to sprint or put out incredible anaerobic power - you have to have some kind of existing fast twitch fibres and natural ability. Plus his record as a junior suggests he's not solely some kind of mutant super-responder - unless he was doping since he was about 10.

He can probably feel slightly hard done by that he grew up in an era where doping was necessary.

Lol, without doping Valverde would have been nowhere. He's a mediocre climber without the correct stuff. He's certainly not clean now.

Cycling at the junior ranks is dirty as **** as well. Just ask Squinzi.
Well, one of the great tragedies of the blood doping era is that we genuinely can never tell who are the real natural talents. To me though, everything points to Valverde being one of them. It's the riders who just have these huge aerobic engines and not much else who are most suspicious imo - the likes of Wiggins, Basso and Contador. Aerobic endurance is the physiological factor most influenced and improved by blood doping. Anaerobic ability and sprinting is improved as well of course, but to nowhere near the same extent.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re:

DFA123 said:
I get the impression that Valverde is one of those riders who would have dominated everything with or without doping. He has a base level that other dopers have to peak (in addition to their doping) just to get to. His rounded power profile is something that doping can only accentuate; doping alone can't suddenly give an aerobic diesel the ability to sprint or put out incredible anaerobic power - you have to have some kind of existing fast twitch fibres and natural ability. Plus his record as a junior suggests he's not solely some kind of mutant super-responder - unless he was doping since he was about 10.

He can probably feel slightly hard done by that he grew up in an era where doping was necessary.

He has a base level?????? You know this. how?

Piti has been riding a bike a long time and taking a lot of PEDS. He is, imo, a great responder, but he still only has 1 GT to his name, so whether he doesn't over do it or he made a decision never to test positive and plans his program around what can be tested for. He appears to be a seriously smart doper.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
DFA123 said:
I get the impression that Valverde is one of those riders who would have dominated everything with or without doping. He has a base level that other dopers have to peak (in addition to their doping) just to get to. His rounded power profile is something that doping can only accentuate; doping alone can't suddenly give an aerobic diesel the ability to sprint or put out incredible anaerobic power - you have to have some kind of existing fast twitch fibres and natural ability. Plus his record as a junior suggests he's not solely some kind of mutant super-responder - unless he was doping since he was about 10.

He can probably feel slightly hard done by that he grew up in an era where doping was necessary.

He has a base level?????? You know this. how?

Piti has been riding a bike a long time and taking a lot of PEDS. He is, imo, a great responder, but he still only has 1 GT to his name, so whether he doesn't over do it or he made a decision never to test positive and plans his program around what can be tested for. He appears to be a seriously smart doper.
No question that he has found a doping regime that works for him and he responds well. But there are certain things that doping can only help to some extent. It can't give you such a well-rounded power profile, and it can only improve your bike handling to a very limited extent. Also, no other of the big fish dopers in the EPO era have been able to maintain an eight month peak, being competitive in one day races and GTs throughout. All of those suggests he has a lot of natural talent and cycling ability. His level of recovery, even with doping, is pretty unique - suggesting a very high base level.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
DFA123 said:
I get the impression that Valverde is one of those riders who would have dominated everything with or without doping. He has a base level that other dopers have to peak (in addition to their doping) just to get to. His rounded power profile is something that doping can only accentuate; doping alone can't suddenly give an aerobic diesel the ability to sprint or put out incredible anaerobic power - you have to have some kind of existing fast twitch fibres and natural ability. Plus his record as a junior suggests he's not solely some kind of mutant super-responder - unless he was doping since he was about 10.

He can probably feel slightly hard done by that he grew up in an era where doping was necessary.

He has a base level?????? You know this. how?

Piti has been riding a bike a long time and taking a lot of PEDS. He is, imo, a great responder, but he still only has 1 GT to his name, so whether he doesn't over do it or he made a decision never to test positive and plans his program around what can be tested for. He appears to be a seriously smart doper.

IMO, he's a seriously smart doper with protection in very high places. That seemed obvious with how he avoided getting banned for so long after Operación Puerto blew wide open in 2006. Spanish government seemed to be in on the act.

As for DFA's comment, nearly the entire last 25 years has been an era where doping was necessary. He is hardly hard done by :rolleyes:
 
Re:

El Pistolero said:
The 2012 Tour is probably the closest we've seen of his real level. No surprise he can get away with more in his home country.

He looked like he got away from a lot more in 2015 when he was not in his home country and he was really unimpressive in Vuelta apart from a couple stages even though he was the best rider in 2015. I am really curious about your explanation about his performances in Tour and Ardennes.
 
May 6, 2016
224
0
0
Visit site
If Valverde finishes on the podium in this year's Vuelta, he will be the first and only rider in history to podium in two Grand Tours in the same season and have a top 10 finish in the third Grand Tour of the same season.
 
Re:

Zypherov said:
If Valverde finishes on the podium in this year's Vuelta, he will be the first and only rider in history to podium in two Grand Tours in the same season and have a top 10 finish in the third Grand Tour of the same season.

I hope he banked enough blood! He must be on a 1 BB strategy per GT.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Zypherov said:
If Valverde finishes on the podium in this year's Vuelta, he will be the first and only rider in history to podium in two Grand Tours in the same season and have a top 10 finish in the third Grand Tour of the same season.

I hope he banked enough blood!
:D

If it wasnt for spanish and italian authorities stepping up to the plate we'd still be thinking this guy is clean !

And where gatlin is vilified, cookson cant wait to take a selfie with valverde.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
3
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sniper said:
thehog said:
Zypherov said:
If Valverde finishes on the podium in this year's Vuelta, he will be the first and only rider in history to podium in two Grand Tours in the same season and have a top 10 finish in the third Grand Tour of the same season.

I hope he banked enough blood!
:D

If it wasnt for spanish and italian authorities stepping up to the plate we'd still be thinking this guy is clean !

And where gatlin is vilified, cookson cant wait to take a selfie with valverde.
He is obv clean now. He too is passing all the tests that prove Froome is clean.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
He has a base level?????? You know this. how?

Piti has been riding a bike a long time and taking a lot of PEDS. He is, imo, a great responder, but he still only has 1 GT to his name, so whether he doesn't over do it or he made a decision never to test positive and plans his program around what can be tested for. He appears to be a seriously smart doper.

Yes, it's kind of unknowable in the current era to say who'd be the best in a clean world. Not only are some riders, much better responders, some have better doctors, some live in countries with nonexistent testing, some have protection in high places.

Normally when the discussion comes up, people think their favourite rider would win races clean, while the guy they don't like is only good because of the drugs :)

One thing you can say about Valverde is he rarely seems to crash or get caught out with mechanicals though, unlike many of his GC rivals.
 
May 6, 2016
224
0
0
Visit site
Valverde finished 43rd in today's stage, 10'56" behind the winner Gesink !!. This is almost unprecedented for him. He has slipped to 19th overall on GC, 10'14" behind Quintana. Bad day or what ??.
 
Long, long, long overdue for him to have a bad day, although he used to have loads of bad days in the TdF back during his confirmed doping years. I do not buy at all that cycling is unique in endurance and athletic events in that you can continue to improve your performance naturally into your mid-late thirties and beyond. A complete joke watching this confirmed doper all over the top GC rankings this season, particularly as he's been doubling up doing some domestique work too. I'd far rather see a Spaniard of 23-26 years putting in these sort of performances. It's still be dubious, but it wouldn't be as comical as Valverde.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

vedrafjord said:
Benotti69 said:
He has a base level?????? You know this. how?

Piti has been riding a bike a long time and taking a lot of PEDS. He is, imo, a great responder, but he still only has 1 GT to his name, so whether he doesn't over do it or he made a decision never to test positive and plans his program around what can be tested for. He appears to be a seriously smart doper.

Yes, it's kind of unknowable in the current era to say who'd be the best in a clean world. Not only are some riders, much better responders, some have better doctors, some live in countries with nonexistent testing, some have protection in high places.

Normally when the discussion comes up, people think their favourite rider would win races clean, while the guy they don't like is only good because of the drugs :)

One thing you can say about Valverde is he rarely seems to crash or get caught out with mechanicals though, unlike many of his GC rivals.
To your 1st point: very true. Also, some start doping earlier than others. And some do dope early but only get their hands on A-grade drugs in a later stadium of their carreers ( froome, wiggins).

To your 2nd point: couldn't agree more. Some of these discussions are just muddied by irrelevant digressions about a rider's likeability factor. I just spoke to a guy the other day who still can't believe lance doped. He liked him so much.

To 3rd point: true. And also no inhalers or dodgy wheel changes for valverde.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

vedrafjord said:
Benotti69 said:
He has a base level?????? You know this. how?

Piti has been riding a bike a long time and taking a lot of PEDS. He is, imo, a great responder, but he still only has 1 GT to his name, so whether he doesn't over do it or he made a decision never to test positive and plans his program around what can be tested for. He appears to be a seriously smart doper.

Yes, it's kind of unknowable in the current era to say who'd be the best in a clean world. Not only are some riders, much better responders, some have better doctors, some live in countries with nonexistent testing, some have protection in high places.

Normally when the discussion comes up, people think their favourite rider would win races clean, while the guy they don't like is only good because of the drugs :)

One thing you can say about Valverde is he rarely seems to crash or get caught out with mechanicals though, unlike many of his GC rivals.

Piti was born to ride a bike full of PEDs. He rides it well and is lucky to avoid mechanicals, but again maybe he checks his bike, makes his mechanic go the extra mile......
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Visit site
To Echoes:

I'm curious to hear what's the difference in Merckx doping cases (CASES, there were three of them), and Valverde's case (CASE, only one). You said it's not comparable, why? and how? In fact, if Merckx rode some 30 years later he would probably get a lifetime ban for those violations. So if Valverde has a cross, as you said, over all his results, then certainly Eddy Merckx, the greatest rider who ever turn the pedal, has that same cross too.

And for the record, I don't think any of this two should have any cross, asterisk, or whatever in terms of their results.
 
There's a clear difference of nature between stimulant doping and blood transfusion. That's my point.

Anynody is entitled to treat the two the same way but comparing a stimulant like pemoline and blood transfusion is comparing apples and oranges. Stimulants are just a way to wake up when you are too tired but are not "transmuting". Besides it was perfectly possible for clean riders to win races, even big ones while it's very hard with the new methods. Blood transfusion came with Francesco Moser in 1984 (I know it started before but didn't really work until Moser). Philippe Bordas considered it the day cycling died (the Moser first "record" 1984).

It's been discussed here many times, I think.

I'm not saying that stimulants should all be depenalised. I just don't think it makes the rider who uses them a big joke. It's a bit like an illegal sprint when you deviate from your line, you should be disqualified but you may start a race the next day. With blood doping like EPO, transfusions or hormone-based doping like testosterone or HGH cycling makes no sense anymore and such cheating should be combatted mercilessly. Even with riders we liked until that point. That's my viewpoint. I can understand people who are of the opinion that all kind of doping should be fought against the same way. It's radical, savonarolesque but I cannot really understand how some might clear their favourite riders who had been confounded with EPO or blood transfusion etc because after all there's a level-playing field and doping has always existed in cycling, etc exists in other sports too. I cannot understand that. My youth heroes have been screwed by EPO, I didn't even know at the time.

Also for the record, only one Merckx positive test is really admitted, the third one at the 1977 Arrow for pomeline/stimul. The Savona one is a typical Italian combazione to get rid of a straniero and he's been cleared of it. The second one at the 1973 Tour of Lombardy was a case of therapeutic use at a time when TUE did not exist, after having a sore throat at the Coppa Agostoni, he took syrup containing norephedryne.
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
Visit site
Echoes said:
There's a clear difference of nature between stimulant doping and blood transfusion. That's my point.

Anynody is entitled to treat the two the same way but comparing a stimulant like pemoline and blood transfusion is comparing apples and oranges. Stimulants are just a way to wake up when you are too tired but are not "transmuting". Besides it was perfectly possible for clean riders to win races, even big ones while it's very hard with the new methods. Blood transfusion came with Francesco Moser in 1984 (I know it started before but didn't really work until Moser). Philippe Bordas considered it the day cycling died (the Moser first "record" 1984).

It's been discussed here many times, I think.

I'm not saying that stimulants should all be depenalised. I just don't think it makes the rider who uses them a big joke. It's a bit like an illegal sprint when you deviate from your line, you should be disqualified but you may start a race the next day. With blood doping like EPO, transfusions or hormone-based doping like testosterone or HGH cycling makes no sense anymore and such cheating should be combatted mercilessly. Even with riders we liked until that point. That's my viewpoint. I can understand people who are of the opinion that all kind of doping should be fought against the same way. It's radical, savonarolesque but I cannot really understand how some might clear their favourite riders who had been confounded with EPO or blood transfusion etc because after all there's a level-playing field and doping has always existed in cycling, etc exists in other sports too. I cannot understand that. My youth heroes have been screwed by EPO, I didn't even know at the time.

Also for the record, only one Merckx positive test is really admitted, the third one at the 1977 Arrow for pomeline/stimul. The Savona one is a typical Italian combazione to get rid of a straniero and he's been cleared of it. The second one at the 1973 Tour of Lombardy was a case of therapeutic use at a time when TUE did not exist, after having a sore throat at the Coppa Agostoni, he took syrup containing norephedryne.

Enjoyed reading that. Nice use of 'savonarolesque' too, I'm just reading about him now, never read about him before. I like it when posters throw in obscure references, educational and stuff innit.
You seem to be quite definitive that modern doping is Frankenstein stuff and must be fought. The fight isn't real though is it, it's for appearances only. What do you think about immediate lifetime bans? A way forward perhaps, under your vision? (genuine questions, just in case it's ambiguous).
 

TRENDING THREADS