Riders 'combatting' accusations with results..

[Hindsy_141]

I've noticed this over a long period of time. For some reason cyclingnews.com articles when on the topic of cyclists implicated in doping scandals, are reported to be combatting their accusers with good results in races.
eg.
Valverde makes Statement by winning Dauphine, Di Luca continues winning ways despite Oil for Drugs investigation.

I hate talking about drugs, but I do find it some what bemusing that riders apparently are more clean if they're winning and implicated than not winning.

In the case of Valverde, legal arguments aside, his DNA whether it was taken legally or not has been matched to blood bags from Operation Puerto. Thus he is 100% guilty.

Can anyone clarify the strange reporting..?

 

[BroDeal]

Can anyone clarify the strange reporting..?

I got this straight from McQuaid:

A winner does not dope. Only losers dope. If losers dope and become winners then they cease being losers, so they can no longer be dopers. If winners are caught doping then they were actually losers who faked being winners. If winners are suspected of doping, they can prove that they are really winners who would not dope by winning more. If winners who continue to win are tried for doping then it shows that winners are tempted to dope in order to keep up with the losers who dope to pretend to be winners. After being convicted of doping, a winner who was tempted to dope to keep up with the losers who dope to pretend to be winners is proved to be a winner disquised as a loser pretending to be a winner.

I hope that is clear.

 

[stephens]

Thus he is 100% guilty.

But guilty of what, exactly? And do you mean guilty by the loose standards of internet busy-bodies, or by cycling governing bodies, or by criminal courts in free countries, or...

The internet types have declared him guilty of various things.

The easiest way for a governing body to declare a rider 100% guilty is to produce and actual failed out-of-competition or in-competition test. Anything less than that will always produce less than 100% guilt in the eyes of many fans and other pros.

Criminal courts is a tougher standard requiring the accused being able to confront his accusers, have all evidence independently questioned,and so on.

 

[quadsRme]

I got this straight from McQuaid:

A winner does not dope. Only losers dope. If losers dope and become winners then they cease being losers, so they can no longer be dopers. If winners are caught doping then they were actually losers who faked being winners. If winners are suspected of doping, they can prove that they are really winners who would not dope by winning more. If winners who continue to win are tried for doping then it shows that winners are tempted to dope in order to keep up with the losers who dope to pretend to be winners. After being convicted of doping, a winner who was tempted to dope to keep up with the losers who dope to pretend to be winners is proved to be a winner disquised as a loser pretending to be a winner.

I hope that is clear.

Wow, if it was that easy ...... joking aside did the Mc man really pass this on to you?

 

[quadsRme]

I got this straight from McQuaid:

A winner does not dope. Only losers dope. If losers dope and become winners then they cease being losers, so they can no longer be dopers. If winners are caught doping then they were actually losers who faked being winners. If winners are suspected of doping, they can prove that they are really winners who would not dope by winning more. If winners who continue to win are tried for doping then it shows that winners are tempted to dope in order to keep up with the losers who dope to pretend to be winners. After being convicted of doping, a winner who was tempted to dope to keep up with the losers who dope to pretend to be winners is proved to be a winner disquised as a loser pretending to be a winner.

I hope that is clear.

Please repeat this quote 10 times as fast as you can

 

[rolfrae]

I've noticed this over a long period of time. For some reason cyclingnews.com articles when on the topic of cyclists implicated in doping scandals, are reported to be combatting their accusers with good results in races.
eg.
Valverde makes Statement by winning Dauphine, Di Luca continues winning ways despite Oil for Drugs investigation.

I hate talking about drugs, but I do find it some what bemusing that riders apparently are more clean if they're winning and implicated than not winning.

In the case of Valverde, legal arguments aside, his DNA whether it was taken legally or not has been matched to blood bags from Operation Puerto. Thus he is 100% guilty.

Can anyone clarify the strange reporting..?

Disgraced rider: "I decided the best way to prove I was clean was to win every race I entered. That way the authorities and race organisers would look like idiots if a few months later they banned me from races. My suspension would make a mockery of all the races I won just before my suspension, thus the best thing for all concerned is to turn a blind eye. Suspension? What suspension?"

 

[flyor64]

I got this straight from McQuaid:

A winner does not dope. Only losers dope. If losers dope and become winners then they cease being losers, so they can no longer be dopers. If winners are caught doping then they were actually losers who faked being winners. If winners are suspected of doping, they can prove that they are really winners who would not dope by winning more. If winners who continue to win are tried for doping then it shows that winners are tempted to dope in order to keep up with the losers who dope to pretend to be winners. After being convicted of doping, a winner who was tempted to dope to keep up with the losers who dope to pretend to be winners is proved to be a winner disquised as a loser pretending to be a winner.

I hope that is clear.

LOL

Disgraced rider: "I decided the best way to prove I was clean was to win every race I entered. That way the authorities and race organisers would look like idiots if a few months later they banned me from races. My suspension would make a mockery of all the races I won just before my suspension, thus the best thing for all concerned is to turn a blind eye. Suspension? What suspension?"

scary...but in the screwed up ways sport has gone over the last 20 or so years, his reasoning would make perfect sense.

The optimist in me was hoping this mindset was changing... and we even had examples of it in Kohl and Schumacher, however I fear this "upwared trend" may have already been squashed

 

[rolfrae]

LOL
however I fear this "upwared trend" may have already been squashed

I agree. Armstrong's return was the symbolic nail in the coffin.

 

[dr_wok]

Valverde needs to go down.

But guilty of what, exactly?

Err, to clarify, as physical evidence exists which proves Valverde's DNA is in blood stored at Fuentes' clinic, he is guilty of blood manipulation, which is against the UCI and WADA anti-doping code, a code Valverde (fraudulently) states he will abide by every time he signs onto a race using his UCI licence.

And for all those who think that 'intention' to dope is not proper doping, I might remind you that possession of steroids makes someone as guilty of doping as a positive steroid test (according to WADA as I understand it) thus presence of your blood in a blood doping facility makes you just as guilty as a positive result.

Valverde is also guilty of stealing results from clean riders, guilty of setting an example of dope-and-deny to the next generation, guilty of treating the cycling fans as gullible idiots, and guilty of hiding behind an obstructive Spanish legal system.

Why aren't the press hammering him? They report his victories, his excuses, his CAS appeals, but no-one is doing anything about the fact that a Spanish judge is sitting on a big fat pile of evidence and not releasing it to anyone because they say it is a 'criminal' case and not a 'sporting fraud' case. Why aren't the press investigating this??

As he is quite clearly guilty, the public and press should treat him that way until the UCI and WADA find a legal loophole to get access to the evidence. Cycling will never 'turn over a new leaf' until those involved in Puerto are out of the sport.

 

[Epicurus]

Cycling will never 'turn over a new leaf' until those involved in Puerto are out of the sport.

But... the "Puerto scandal" is much much bigger than those cyclists involved.
And the governing bodies of the other sports have already "forgotten" Puerto.

Valverde is also guilty of stealing results from clean riders, guilty of setting an example of dope-and-deny to the next generation, guilty of treating the cycling fans as gullible idiots, and guilty of hiding behind an obstructive Spanish legal system.

This argument should be logical if we knew the exact number of the doped cyclists in the peloton (if any) and the clean ones (if any).

 

[bianchigirl]

I believe Balco shifted the burden of proof from a positive test towards the acceptance of circumstantial evidence. After all, David Millar and a long line of other riders never tested positive - they have served suspensions because they confessed, not because they failed a test.

 

[dr_wok]

Point taken. I am naive enough however to believe that at least a few riders (especially the young) are clean these days - a view supported by Ann Griper and the blood passport team in her interview. It doesn't matter if the whole top 10 of a race are doping, if the rider who came in 25th or so is clean, then the winner is stealing results and cheating from them.

A lot of people seem to be happy with the argument 'let them all cheat, then they'll be on a level playing field'. Same argument Sella used about the GIro 2008.

How would you feel if you or your son was trying to turn pro, and was pressured into doping to be competitive? It's easy to ignore doping unless it's you or your family directly affected.

 

[BroDeal]

Point taken. I am naive enough however to believe that at least a few riders (especially the young) are clean these days - a view supported by Ann Griper and the blood passport team in her interview.

The idea that the younger riders are cleaner than the older rider is nothing but public relations by the UCI. The only reason there are few young riders busted is that testing is so ineffective that riders can dope for years before the odds of getting caught catch up with them. Four riders were tossed from the Baby Giro this year. Simoni said it best, "So much for the new generation."

 

[rhubroma]

But guilty of what, exactly? And do you mean guilty by the loose standards of internet busy-bodies, or by cycling governing bodies, or by criminal courts in free countries, or...

The internet types have declared him guilty of various things.

The easiest way for a governing body to declare a rider 100% guilty is to produce and actual failed out-of-competition or in-competition test. Anything less than that will always produce less than 100% guilt in the eyes of many fans and other pros.

Criminal courts is a tougher standard requiring the accused being able to confront his accusers, have all evidence independently questioned,and so on.

No the blood in the Valve-Piti sack is his. That has been 100% verified by the DNA match. Your judicial logic, which isn't logical at all, is what is killing sport. Because what it all boils down to is a legal poker game, where money buys the slyest legal defense to get away with murder by exploiting the disunity in the doping war among the different nations.

Speaking of a criminal court: if this guy were an average joe who killed someone without his glam job and salary to boot who could only afford a "working class" legal defense, with the evidence against him he'd be thrown in the slammer for the rest of his life.

 

[rhubroma]

How would you feel if you or your son was trying to turn pro, and was pressured into doping to be competitive? It's easy to ignore doping unless it's you or your family directly affected.

Well, I don't know generally speaking. Me personally would be concerned, to say the least. Aparently, though, under expert medical care, blood doping today is rather safe. And unfortunately I know lots of parents who would make no qualms about it and even help their talented kid dope if it meant riding the Tour and a fat salary to boot.

There are lots of unscrupulous parents out there and besides, those with a passion for cycling in Europe aren't naive enough to believe that you can have a successful career without being jacked. So either they live in denial or else participate by storing their kids drugs in their refrigerators, so the testers can't find the stuff in his apartment.

 

[Epicurus]

How would you feel if you or your son was trying to turn pro, and was pressured into doping to be competitive? It's easy to ignore doping unless it's you or your family directly affected.

I'm a hardcore realist. I see things as they are now, not as i would like them to be.

If my son had a "pro cyclist" ambition then he should be aware of all the parameters in pro cycling.

When the word "professional" comes into play, we cannot expect an ideal situation. Everyone's moral standards are different.
If we don't like the world as it is today (including me on various subjects) means that our opponents are numerous, more powerful, or both.

 

[Anonymous]

I got this straight from McQuaid:

A winner does not dope. Only losers dope. If losers dope and become winners then they cease being losers, so they can no longer be dopers. If winners are caught doping then they were actually losers who faked being winners. If winners are suspected of doping, they can prove that they are really winners who would not dope by winning more. If winners who continue to win are tried for doping then it shows that winners are tempted to dope in order to keep up with the losers who dope to pretend to be winners. After being convicted of doping, a winner who was tempted to dope to keep up with the losers who dope to pretend to be winners is proved to be a winner disquised as a loser pretending to be a winner.

I hope that is clear.

has he been taking tips from rumsfeld..

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know