Valverde banned for 2 years?

[Mrs John Murphy]

Basso and Scarponi just finished 1st and 4th in the Giro. Basso finished top 5 in two Grand Tours last year and Scarponi won Tirreno-Adriatico and only lost out this year on overall placings (bet he wishes he didn't showboat to the line in stage 5 now!). Scarponi is 30 and has years ahead of him. Basso is 32 and likewise.

Are the Spanish authorities soft on doping? Definitely. But to say that the likes of Basso and Scarponi were "losing their careers" because they got banned is over the top.

Plus, I'll add that the reason Basso and Scarponi were sanctioned - and Valverde too, lest we forget - is because CONI, which is the Italian Olympic authority, not the cycling authority, got involved. The Italian cycling authority are those ones who were so legendarily hard-nosed as to give Danilo di Luca a three-month ban through the off-season for his involvement in Oil For Drugs. I'm not convinced that they're much better than RFEC, but at least CONI treat their job seriously. Even if they should perhaps have shown their evidence to the UCI about a year earlier...

What else are you going to dig up? That is 1873 there was an doping scandal that the Italians didn't deal with.

Oil for Drugs is irrelevant to this. We are talking about OP and the failure of the Spanish to deal with it, contrasted with how the Italians dealt with it.

Doesn't matter if it is CONI or the Pope doing the banning. Basso, Scarponi were banned, Piti wasn't and wouldn't have been except for the blood bag being given to the Italians.

Lets see Piti has his most successful years at age 28-29-30, and you claim that Basso being banned at ages 28-29-30, but coming back to win means he hasn't lost his career.

 

[hektoren]

Not really. I'll miss him, as he was always entertaining to watch, but he's had the ban coming for a long long time. I'd rather he have already served it and come back.

My main defence of Valverde has not been anything to do with innocence (I don't believe he has any). It is to do with the fact that the way the guy is treated round here, it's like he's a child molester or something. And coming from a forum full of people who cheer for Vino and admit that they enjoy Riccò, that's hypocritical. It's like an arbitrary decision has been made, "hate Valverde". If Riccò or Vino hadn't failed tests and were being brought down the way Valverde was, i.e. slowly, then you bet they'd have behaved just like Valverde. Vino was never going to be suspended by his team, since it was his team, and Saunier Duval, well, they were just rotten to the core. But because they were dumb enough to fail tests, then dictate the terms of their comeback to the very team they left (Vino) or wax lyrical about themselves (Riccò), they're lauded as exciting, entertaining and sticking it to the way dopers are "supposed to behave", yet Valverde, who wasn't dumb enough to fail a test and was smart enough to manipulate the system to keep himself earning and enlivening races, is the devil incarnate?

For the sport, it's good he's gone, and not before time. For the spectacle, it's a shame because he always brought something to the races.

I can agree with some of your points, but you don't really address my main concern; that he was (with the aid of DNA-testing) proven positive a long time ago, yet he continued to fight a legal battle knowing full well that the world at large knows he hasn't got a moral leg to stand on. That is dragging the dignity of the sport through the mud, completely unnecessary, and with a very predictable outcome. I don't care much for Vino, have a permanently raised left eyebrow over the Ricco-family's apparent affinity for CERA and their equally apparent collective disdain for family values, so painting me into your picture of double standards and hypocrisy doesn't quite fit the bill. I'm just for a clean sport I'd be happy to see my kids entering. We've got a ways to go yet. Can't wait to see a collective understanding across national cycling unions of the importance of anti-doping regulations, and I'm increasingly impatiently awaiting local health authorities in all countries doing double-ought investigating of their GP's doing shady scientific stuff with the sole purpose of cheating for big money.

 

[Aguirre]

Guess I'm the only one who is a bit saddened by this news. I really like him as a rider and I'll miss him.

Seems all Spanish riders I like used dope. First Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano, then Mayo and now Valverde. Only Plaza, Cobo and S. Sánchez left.

don't be naive, if you believed in valverde just a week ago, then this sentence wich is a techicality doesn't change the evidence. He will come and you might like him again,

look at vino, basso etc

 

[hektoren]

I'm sorry, but this is complete bollocks.

The really hypocrisy is whining about Basso, a man who has served two years for OP and Valverde, who hasn't.
When Valverde returns, he starts afresh, IMO, same as all the others. No difference regardless of whatever any of them say during their limbo period.

After that, if any proper evidence of infractions turn up, then they return to being fair game.

If you feel unable to wipe the slate clean and rush to judgement, it will be a subjective one, based solely upon the racing results.

As for the remainder of the Liquigas team being "doped to the eyeballs", that is just an unsubstantiated opinion. No evidence whatsoever.
Sounds like a bad case of sour grapes to me.

I can only assume that the Giro was not a great GT, IYO, which, is a pity.

+10 Couldn't agree more.

 

[Thee_chisa]

liquigas team very dodgy, basso might not be doping but i bet nibali and Szmyd are. team sky were interested in nibali but didn't sign him. sky wanted to look at the blood passport of all the riders they signed so make of that what you will.

 

[Jonathan]

The problem here seems to be cheering for Vinokourov and Ricco by some unnamed posters. This is identified as hypocrisy because Valverde was demonised. To make this argument work, you have to quote the posters cheering dopers and then saying negative things about Valverde because of his doping. I think this is very difficult; the biggest Vino/Ricco fans don't seem to be the ones leading the charge against Valverde. Have you, Libertine Seguros and Escarabajo, perhaps confused a general impression with what the average forum member thinks?

These are two different things. The average forum member might have some attitude about Vinokourov, about Ricco, about Rebellin, or anyone you care to mention, measured on a scale of 1 (very negative) to 10 (very positive). The result would be a forum member that does not actually exist. However, I would agree that the attitude towards Ricco and Vinokourov has generally been more favorable than that displayed towards Valverde. But it's impossible to argue with that, because the vaguely delineated group displaying these attitudes is not represented by any clear opinion.

The best you can do is follow the trends in opinion, and describe them. Sure there is some hypocrisy concerning Valverde, but there is also reason: he wasn't suspended when there were clear grounds to do so. Therefore, you can make a strong case that Valverde would have been as welcome as any caught doper had he served his suspension in some period the past four years. So the reactions may be more in line than you think.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Well, that was a long time coming. A nice reminder that high profile riders can indeed get away with "never testing positive in races" and have been dirty cheats all along, dear journalists. For the next time people feel an urge to parrot instead of questioning the obvious ability to get away with it for years at top level.

I am glad that someone who was caught messing has got the ban as it was promised to those that were caught. You join the system, you play the system, you mess up, you pay.

I didn't hate to see Valverde ride over the last year more (or less) than any of the long list of riders from that era that are still around and are probably no strangers to the stuff either. I have never really got it why he drew much hotter fire than others. Maybe a case of "their dopers being so much worse than our dopers".

Instead, I'm sure that in that era, it was a far more level playing field than the list of banned riders suggests. There were some tough choices to be made in back then (and still), at all levels of competitiveness. I applaud those brave (and able) to just walk away from it, but I don't despise those that didn't.

And yes, I'm also delighted we seem to be getting beyond the worst of it. I don't like that culture one bit.

Still, I actually quite enjoyed Valverde in action, as I have enjoyed druggies from Merckx to Rasmussen for the entertainment I have witnessed. And I'll miss him more then some, as he sure was one of those that animated races. You can inject some capacity, but you don't change the instinct and attitude much. I liked his style.

And I suspect he wasn't using less than others then, as I suspect he was also living "cleanly" in that grey area that is semi-officially tolerated now. What he won this year was won on that same level playing field.

There is only one pro-career to have in road cycling, the one that comes with all the trappings of office when you join up. He messed it up a bit more than others, got caught out, and chose this route out. He has been in a process, one that was clearly open to him. Again, I did not hate him for picking the route open to him, it's the rule makers I have issues with. Anyway, that route has now run its inevitable course. 2 years it is, and thankfully not back-dated too far, so he will do 18 months, or whatever. Maybe I am even glad he has staggered his naughty step period with others.

I hope to see him back at some point, and I'd really welcome him back. Like I have welcomed back all those from Millar up to Vino. I don't need the circus of seeing people "be sorry" to make me feel better. In a way I even prefer the "what bit surprised you - sorry for what?" attitude. I know full well what I am watching, and I still think it is great (as I think it has always been a level playing field of sorts).

When he comes back he'll know the rules of the game as he finds it then, and I will once again assume that he'll try hard to fall within the letter of the law when the watchtower flashlight drops by, rather than the spirit, as that seems to be the arena that is left to the riders to compete and earn a living in. As long as he doesn't get caught, I will take it for granted he is playing along as it is "institutionally" accepted. In a loopy way I trust those that have come back to work harder to stay within the "parameters", than those that have got away with it and keep doing so.

So 2012 it is.

Saying all that, I hate dope in sport. I want it out.

But rules are rules. Those rules are set and enforced by others. The sport will get as dirty as the watchmen allow it to become. I believe it is getting better, but it isn't banning riders that will change the sport, and 2006 is well beyond us. But someone will have to throw the stick into the Watchmen henhouse before we get serious changes. That's where our real problem lies. We can ban until we keel over, until we ban the obvious officials from getting anywhere near the control panel, we will keep fiddling at the margins and see random talent and bread-earners ostracised for taking the only realistic career route left open to them.

I hope that the stick has been thrown now, in the US, and it is beyond the Watchmen control at last. The feds getting very serious with Lance and the UCI is the only way I can see the circumstances in which riders find them change within the next few years. It will be a long process. I hope the holy houses will truly burn.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Great sportsman my a.. he shouldn't have been in the race.

You're right. Or in reality, he should; he should have come back from his ban by that point. I wasn't saying that I thought he was a great sportsman for giving Szmyd the win. I was merely countering the contention that he might be ostracized like Rasmussen or Sinkewitz by pointing out that many riders and fans still like and respect him.

I like him. He makes bike races more interesting. I don't respect him.

 

[LugHugger]

I'm sorry, but this is complete bollocks.

The really hypocrisy is whining about Basso, a man who has served two years for OP and Valverde, who hasn't.
When Valverde returns, he starts afresh, IMO, same as all the others. No difference regardless of whatever any of them say during their limbo period.

After that, if any proper evidence of infractions turn up, then they return to being fair game.

If you feel unable to wipe the slate clean and rush to judgement, it will be a subjective one, based solely upon the racing results.

As for the remainder of the Liquigas team being "doped to the eyeballs", that is just an unsubstantiated opinion. No evidence whatsoever.
Sounds like a bad case of sour grapes to me.

I can only assume that the Giro was not a great GT, IYO, which, is a pity.

Great race, no argument there. But I don't for one minute believe that Basso, or the majority of the Liquigas team, are 'clean'. Ditto for 90% of the other top 30 or so finishers. ATMO.

 

[Aguirre]

the whole situation is surreal.

Valverde misses 3 tdF, 3 Giro d'Italia. I thought if someone is banned 2 years will just miss 2 tdF and 2 Giro's...

This is called justice in our post-Bushean days.

Pat! you got your own personal revenge, but consider you might have to put the arc-en-ciel jersey to Valverde in 2012!

 

[Libertine Seguros]

What else are you going to dig up? That is 1873 there was an doping scandal that the Italians didn't deal with.

Oil for Drugs is irrelevant to this. We are talking about OP and the failure of the Spanish to deal with it, contrasted with how the Italians dealt with it.

And the Italian CYCLING authority hasn't got a very good track record. The Italian OLYMPIC authority, on the other hand, has. Perhaps if the Spanish Olympic authority decided to dip its feet in the water we'd see sea change (I'm not expectant that we would, mind).

Oh, and if Oil For Drugs is '1873'... just to be facetious I'll point out that it's more recent than the crime for which Valverde's being hanged at present

 

[Escarabajo]

I'm sorry, but this is complete bollocks.

The really hypocrisy is whining about Basso, a man who has served two years for OP and Valverde, who hasn't.
When Valverde returns, he starts afresh, IMO, same as all the others. No difference regardless of whatever any of them say during their limbo period.

After that, if any proper evidence of infractions turn up, then they return to being fair game.

If you feel unable to wipe the slate clean and rush to judgement, it will be a subjective one, based solely upon the racing results.

As for the remainder of the Liquigas team being "doped to the eyeballs", that is just an unsubstantiated opinion. No evidence whatsoever.
Sounds like a bad case of sour grapes to me.

I can only assume that the Giro was not a great GT, IYO, which, is a pity.

I thought the Giro was great until the third week. I did not like what I saw in the Mortirollo. Trust me I am fairly neutral about riders. Maybe a little bias about Colombians but that's all.

I just feel that the "Positive" should not be the only thing that differentiate a bad guy from a good guy. Especially in the clinic where it is a lot about speculation. I still think that it is a "Double Stardard" for opinion. That's all.

I guess I'll take the heat for my comments. Maybe I should just accept that most riders dope and enjoy cycling for what it is now. But If I do that for sure I won't celebrate and clap when a doper is punished.

 

[MarkGreen0]

Well you'll see no glee from me about this. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, I always think it's sad when a great rider is taken out of the game at their peak. As a fan of the sport I like to see the best guys in the world competing against each other - I could never be happy about someone being forced not to compete, even if it's their own fault.

 

[Escarabajo]

The problem here seems to be cheering for Vinokourov and Ricco by some unnamed posters. This is identified as hypocrisy because Valverde was demonised. To make this argument work, you have to quote the posters cheering dopers and then saying negative things about Valverde because of his doping. I think this is very difficult; the biggest Vino/Ricco fans don't seem to be the ones leading the charge against Valverde. Have you, Libertine Seguros and Escarabajo, perhaps confused a general impression with what the average forum member thinks?

...

Fair enough. I'll try to do that next time. In this case it was almost a majority who applauded the Giro for its spectacle, and Basso and its team in it. That's why I threw the blanket. But I'll try not to do that next time.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Barrus]

liquigas team very dodgy, basso might not be doping but i bet nibali and Szmyd are. team sky were interested in nibali but didn't sign him. sky wanted to look at the blood passport of all the riders they signed so make of that what you will.

Really? You're really making that argument, that is really a load of crock. Even if Sky was really interested in Nibali, 1 he still had a crontact, 2 he didn't really want to leave Liquigas, if he wanted to he could easily have left after this year to go to another team, yet he signed for another 1 or 2 years (can't remember from the top of my head). I myself won't be amazed if we never see Nibali work for a non-Italian team.
Also what do you base your accusation of Szmyd on?

BTW that sky only wanted clean riders in my mind is a bold-faced lie, on the part of Sky. If there is one person who I do not believe to be riding clean, even for a second is Wigan, sudden transformation to a GC-contender, sorry but I don't believe that.


On-topic: Great that he's banned, took a bit too long, but it is understandable what he did. What I do find partially strange is the fact that his ban in Italy practically has become doubled. I wonder how well he'll be coming back, and am looking forward to seeing him racing again, always an interesting and most of the time attractive racer

And another thing, I think there is a real problem in Pro-Cycling and this mainly stems from the manner in which national cycling federations act. In many cases it were not the Cycling authorities, especially not against there own riders. There is probably some form of conflict of interests for them, but really most do not appear to be that hard on the doping problem. This might perhaps be my own interpretation of these situations and I might be wrong, but really it doesn't seem to go in the right direction to me.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

And the Italian CYCLING authority hasn't got a very good track record. The Italian OLYMPIC authority, on the other hand, has. Perhaps if the Spanish Olympic authority decided to dip its feet in the water we'd see sea change (I'm not expectant that we would, mind).

Oh, and if Oil For Drugs is '1873'... just to be facetious I'll point out that it's more recent than the crime for which Valverde's being hanged at present

And? Italian cyclists have been banned for their role in OP, Spanish cyclists and other sportsmen (how is EPO Rafa these days?) haven't been. Why? Because the spanish legal and sporting authorities have tried to protect their boys from conviction. And very successful it's been too. Dertie has won the Giro, TDF and Vuelta, Piti won the Vuelta. Perhaps less of a golden age and more of a golden syringe era for Spanish cycling.

You go back to whenever you like to find examples of dopers not being properly prosecuted but we are talking about the here and now.

As for the Piti/Vino/Ricco/Basso comparisons. All are dopers, none are very repentant. But its hard to cheer for a doper who hasn't been caught or is protected by corrupt authorities - Dertie, Uniballer, etc, over dopers who have served their bans - Basso, Ricco, Vino, Scarponi etc But at least none of them are hypocrites like Disco David Millar.

 

[Anonymous]

Well you'll see no glee from me about this. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, I always think it's sad when a great rider is taken out of the game at their peak. As a fan of the sport I like to see the best guys in the world competing against each other - I could never be happy about someone being forced not to compete, even if it's their own fault.

maybe, but if the spanish federation and valverdes lawyers hadnt tried to drag this one on and on and on so he could continue to earn millions of euros, he would have served his ban and be back by now, in time for his peak.. he only has himself to blame.

valverde has got all that he deserved, he even gets to keep some wins on his palmares. hes laughing all the way to the bank

 

[Mellow Velo]

Great race, no argument there. But I don't for one minute believe that Basso, or the majority of the Liquigas team, are 'clean'. Ditto for 90% of the other top 30 or so finishers. ATMO.

That's the doping conundrum, I'm afraid. Nobody knows what to believe. Thanks a lot all the cheats out there; caught, suspected or those lucky enough
to be considered worthy the tag of "clean".
That's why it doping ruins our sport.

However, I rush not to condemn, regardless of what I think I know, because of the third group mentioned above, not the first.

 

[laura.weislo]

I'm wondering, is there a double-jeopardy type rule that would apply in this situation? The Italian ban is up May, 2011, but the UCI one is up Dec, 31, 2011. Will Valverde be racing in Italy during the late 2011 season? Or does the UCI ban supersede the Italian one?

I wonder if the Spanish fed will have the cajones to let him keep racing in Spain for the duration. After all, their justices say the Italians had no right to use evidence in the case.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Good post Mellow. Agree.

The Valverde suspension seems maybe too much, too late. Well, maybe not too much, that's hard to say, but this should have happened nearly four years ago now. Recall that Puerto broke before Landis even "won" the Tour and his saga began. Ugh.

 

[richwagmn]

I'll miss watching him race. Gonna be a long two years...

 

[p e t e r]

liquigas team very dodgy, basso might not be doping but i bet nibali and Szmyd are. team sky were interested in nibali but didn't sign him. sky wanted to look at the blood passport of all the riders they signed so make of that what you will.

Szmyd is the cleanest rider I've ever known so you could resist from talking a load of codswallop if you know nothing.

 

[manolo]

Valverde

For some reason I feel it's slightly wrong to suspend him now when this case was 4 years ago, and as we all know, every top cyclist was doping back then anyway...Oh well...

The Valverde suspension seems maybe too much, too late. Well, maybe not too much, that's hard to say, but this should have happened nearly four years ago now... Puerto broke before Landis..."won" the Tour... Ugh[!].

I agree. I wish, as stupid as it sounds, that they had just taken his wins away, make him pay a fine, return the prize money and offer that he serve a 6 month suspension if he cooperates with an investigation and reveals the methods and procedures he used.

By the way, how about considering changing this Section's name? Something like Performance-Enhancing Allegations and Investigations? : )

 

[Ripper]

Finally! Gee, it's really too bad his legal team was so good, otherwise he could've served this and been back racing along with Basso.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I agree. I wish, as stupid as it sounds, that they had just taken his wins away, make him pay a fine, return the prize money and offer that he serve a 6 month suspension if he cooperates with an investigation and reveals the methods and procedures he used.

I can't say about this case, but I delfinitely agree there needs to be some sort of amnesty or reduced sentence for those that cooperate. How we get to that, or determine that, I don't know.