Valverde banned for 2 years?

[Blakeslee]

The most interesting part of the ruling for me was the decision by CAS not to annul any of Valverde's results prior to 2010 due to there being no evidence these results were obtained through a doping violation. I agree with this decision in principal as the suspension is based on what happened during Operation Puerto. It is clear now that there was widespread doping being practiced in the peloton during the years surrounding the Puerto investigation and it is clear Valverde was one of the riders involved, however it is possible with the improvements made in testing in the past couple of years that Valverde has stopped doping and has been riding clean.

The statements made by Floyd Landis have called all of this into question for me, particularly the descriptions of how the combination of blood doping and micro dosing were being used to beat the testing. Before this I was inclined to believe that while it was likely there were still a certain number of riders still doping, the numbers had dropped significantly since the Puerto years in light of all of the progress made with the testing in the last two years (particularly concerning all the riders caught by the CERA test). Floyd's statements have raised significant doubts for me that Valverde and anyone else are currently riding clean, I'm beginning to fear there may not have been much change since the Puerto years after all.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I don't want to post that VERY long list again of Spanish dopers, so can you stop being the A grade apologist for Spain's gold medal winning performance at doping?

That's why I used the word "confirmed", since there are an awful lot of people who were "cleared" from Puerto who are still out there

Great Britain still had a 25% record of doping violations to riders at last year's Tour.

 

[dsut4392]

I don't want to post that VERY long list again of Spanish dopers, so can you stop being the A grade apologist for Spain's gold medal winning performance at doping?

Oh go on, I'd like to see it. Put it next to the list of spanish pro cyclists over the same period. Then do the same for USA, Italy, Australia, GB etc.

Anyone bringing nationality into the 'doping in sport' argument is on a hiding to nothing. Just look at the record of each of the anglophone nations' track programs for starters (USA- systematic blood doping. AUS - athlete tuning courtesy of DDR developed programs, highly successful for over a decade, but with numerous busts. GB - bought the old Australian program lock stock & barrel).

Just trolling through the wikipedia page on doping cases in cycling doesn't seem to show Spaniards as over-represented, not considering the number of Spaniards competing at the top level of professional cycling (page has yet to be updated with Valv. Piti's suspension).

Britain has had very few successful cyclists over recent decades, but when just about the only high-profile Briton in the sport over the last decade (until wiggo/chav at least) is Millar, your argument really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on [unless you pull the old "the dirty dagos put him up to it"]

Just as a starter for you, I had a quick look at the number of cyclicts from these countries with 25 or more current points on cqranking as at 23 May 2010:
Italy 152 (excluding Pellizzotti)
Spain 128 (excluding Valv Piti)
Australia 54
USA 37
GB 20

Data is available there going back 5 years at least. I doubt you'll be able to make much of a statistical case, but knock yourself out.

 

[timmers]

as for hayles, i can tell you for certain he is not a doper. the way british cycling works is that their system gets kids at an early age and works with them over the years, the best rise to the top - this is due to their physical advantages, such as lots of red blood cells, etc. this is where the blood passport thing falls down IMO, if you have a clean rider who has naturally high HCT then he is ******ed. they are probably chosen in british cycling on HTC levels so as to get a close to the dopers as possible naturally.

This is where it all falls down. You, unless you are Rob Hayles, and even then you may be doped by team doctors like Neil Stephens was, cannot say you are certain he is not a doper. I think he is a doper based on his failed HCT test. Can you prove me wrong?

Valverde is using the Armstrong defence and our American friends are upset about that. But why should we expect Valverde to confess to thinking about doping in 2005/6 when Armstrong the most tested althlete before Alesandro Valverde (ATMTABAV), was never sanctioned.

The problem lies with guys like McQuaid who lie to maintain their paid position in the sport. Would you employ Pat McQuaid??

 

[craig1985]

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.

+1.

Well said.

 

[Dewulf]

Will thisdo?:


Lance is going to have to sue Valv.piti for copyright infringement. Surely these slogans must have been trademarked long ago?

lolol, i thought the same thing

 

[Dewulf]

I just woke up and read the news. I'm fine with a future ban. But I disagree with him losing his 2010 results because the system moved too slowly. The UCI couldn't stop him from racing January 1, and now they're assuming that power retroactively.

I really enjoyed the 2008 Giro d'Italia. I never liked Ricco because of his personality, but he helped keep the race interesting, and Sella's stage wins were fun to see. A couple of months later, both were busted for CERA. I have no doubt in my mind that they were using it at the Giro. I'm STILL waiting fr results of the retest. But those guys still have their results, and the sport has no real interest in pursuing the matter and taking those away.

Now we hasn't failed a test, which means nothing, but if he's doing anything wrong, it's not been caught by the system meant to decide such things. Ban him today, ban him for as long as you want, but the guy did make the effort to race hard through the bad weather at Paris-Nice, there's no evidence that he didn't do it fairly, so why take that away.

I'm not a defender of the guy. When news came out during the Vuelta, I fully expected that race not to count, and for him to be gone. It seemed kind of funny, because I heard the news on TV, and he was racing at the time without knowledge that it would apparently be all for nought.

I'd support having his results stripped for the period when evidence shows he might have been cheating. But like I said, this decision smacks of the UCI assuming powers for January they didn't have for January.

Still waiting for those 2008 Giro retests.

You take it away because he's made this into a saga when it should have been a quick, simple confession, perhaps even with a bit of grassing, a la Thomas Frei.

Instead, He got caught, then used the legal system (aided by the spanish authorities) to turn what should have been penitence, into a gaping chasm in the UCI's credibility. This is something the UCI needs to address urgently - it shouldn't (apparently) be up to the national body to enforce the ban, at least not solely.

But that's a legal procedural problem which you can't just change overnight, and existed at the the time of the discovery anyway. Knowing how buearocracy functions, it's probably unreasonable to expect that to be changed and applied during the course of an individual's ban.

Those commenting "too late UCI no point" need to understand that, and that it was imperative that no matter how long, the ban would go thru. Otherwise you're just saying "get your national cycling body on-side and get a good lawyer, and you can outlast the statute of limitations, ya dig?"

Here's a little ditty I adapted for the part about getting your cycling body on side too, it goes like this:

"bribe bribe, bribe your way free, merrilee merrilee merrrilee mer........LIFE IS SUCH A DREAM" lol

 

[Dewulf]

Very sad, and way too late. Ban him earlier or don't ban him. He's banned while others have escaped.

Special reply on this, already mentioned he has to be banned or it just says "use the legal system well enough with help from your national cycling body and you just have to wait it out - no problem!"

The point is they set about TRYING to ban him when he was found out, not many years later. He's just been a slippery legal snake.

Which makes banning him retrospectively very tricky. Ban him for the standard 2 years and guess what...he can continue racing now! But he was getting paid all the way til now right, so what has he really lost? Some credits? Does it really give say, Cadel, much joy to move up to 2nd instead of 3rd in last year's Vuelta, now?? I don't think so.

But he should lose something, for being so so uncooperative and making this cloud above road cycling's head so much more threatening. Caisse are withdrawing as sponsors, gee, I wonder why that is. So I think starting the ban January this year is actually a good compromise, given the position Valverde put CAS and the UCI in. He suffers the disgrace of losing titles, plus the fact he can't compete in the TdF for the next 2 years. Nice!

As for missing his racing, well I'll admit I enjoyed the mountain stage at the TdU, great battle/teamwork/tactics display amongst him, Sanchez and Cadel. But you know what, there ARE other riders out there like him, waiting to be discovered and nurtured. He is not a unique property. I used to work in the entertainment industry, and at least 50% of the people making it, are making it on clever marketing, not a significant degree of talent more than the average performer.

Of course that's an industry more subject to hype than road racing, but the point is i saw people with masses of talent get passed over, and just play the smaller gigs. And through a different process the same thing can happen in any activity or sport. Look at the influx of massively talented young riders we're getting now - of course each year has it's new best riders, but can we really say all these amazing new guys of 2010 would be getting spots to ride big races and develop, if a whole bunch of the old peleton hadn't been sin binned? I don't think so....

 

[python]

no surprises. i knew he’s a dead meat the moment i finished reading the first cas ruling.

i was a bit surprised by some new lines (compared to the 1st cas ruling) in valverde’s argument.

for example he argued (not without some merit) that under the 2001 uci rules, even if the bag was his, transfusion of plasma would not breach ad rules. unlucky for him, the uci wrapped itself in the 2004 version.

another noteworthy observation i made was that manzano’s testimony was given full credence again.

that should not bode well for armstrong (sorry for a little ot) because manzano (a separate claim) is saying essentially what flandis said - some teams were tipped off re testers visits.

 

[luckyboy]

Great news. I'll be able to watch the Tour now.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Caisse are withdrawing as sponsors, gee, I wonder why that is.

Actually, Groupe Caisse d'Epargne has been one of the companies that was hardest hit by the recession. Banking in France suffered a major hit and to be honest I was half-expecting them to pull out last year, but they've honoured their contractual commitment. I would have expected them to be pulling out at the end of the season, Valverde or no Valverde, especially considering that their team is based outside of the bank's homeland.

lucky - I would have been very surprised if Valverde started the Tour this year, even if he hadn't been banned. The ASO threatened Caisse d'Epargne with exclusion if they included him in their team last year, and little had changed...

 

[Blakeslee]

I thought Ivan Gutierrez's letter defending Valverde was absurd, particularly the passage stating "Alejandro Valverde's case is the greatest injustice I met in all my life". I just don't see how people can continue to depict Valverde as a victim of injustice when there is clear DNA evidence that his blood was in one of the bags seized from Dr. Fuentes.

 

[nevada]

I thought Ivan Gutierrez's letter defending Valverde was absurd, particularly the passage stating "Alejandro Valverde's case is the greatest injustice I met in all my life". I just don't see how people can continue to depict Valverde as a victim of injustice when there is clear DNA evidence that his blood was in one of the bags seized from Dr. Fuentes.

I think highlights just how completely these guys misjudge their behavoir and the public perception.

 

[biker jk]

I thought Ivan Gutierrez's letter defending Valverde was absurd, particularly the passage stating "Alejandro Valverde's case is the greatest injustice I met in all my life". I just don't see how people can continue to depict Valverde as a victim of injustice when there is clear DNA evidence that his blood was in one of the bags seized from Dr. Fuentes.

I agree. He used the LA "most tested cyclist" and "never tested positive" defence. Shameful. Still, at least Gutierrez didn't also try the "doping wasn't illegal in Spain at the time" defence as well.

 

[Animal]

What a whining twat.

The vampires need to pay extra attention to his passport.

 

[icefire]

I agree. He used the LA "most tested cyclist" and "never tested positive" defence. Shameful. Still, at least Gutierrez didn't also try the "doping wasn't illegal in Spain at the time" defence as well.

That's not an argument for the athletes. It would be very silly of them to do that claim. That's the reason why the judge rejects all requests to handover the evidences to the Sports authorities. And rightly so, because if he acts otherwise someone might file a suit against the judge for breach of legal duty.

 

[Ripper]

I just woke up and read the news. I'm fine with a future ban. But I disagree with him losing his 2010 results because the system moved too slowly. The UCI couldn't stop him from racing January 1, and now they're assuming that power retroactively.

I really enjoyed the 2008 Giro d'Italia. I never liked Ricco because of his personality, but he helped keep the race interesting, and Sella's stage wins were fun to see. A couple of months later, both were busted for CERA. I have no doubt in my mind that they were using it at the Giro. I'm STILL waiting fr results of the retest. But those guys still have their results, and the sport has no real interest in pursuing the matter and taking those away.

Now we hasn't failed a test, which means nothing, but if he's doing anything wrong, it's not been caught by the system meant to decide such things. Ban him today, ban him for as long as you want, but the guy did make the effort to race hard through the bad weather at Paris-Nice, there's no evidence that he didn't do it fairly, so why take that away.

I'm not a defender of the guy. When news came out during the Vuelta, I fully expected that race not to count, and for him to be gone. It seemed kind of funny, because I heard the news on TV, and he was racing at the time without knowledge that it would apparently be all for nought.

I'd support having his results stripped for the period when evidence shows he might have been cheating. But like I said, this decision smacks of the UCI assuming powers for January they didn't have for January.

Still waiting for those 2008 Giro retests.

I just need to correct one thing. His legal team was very, very good, and their main approach has been to delay, delay, delay. So, if he had been cooperative back when he was "caught", or at least not fight it every step of the way with every tactic, this would have been dealt with a long time ago.

This is one of the problems with criminalizing this behaviour ... people will pull out all the stops to get out of it, because the punishment is so d*mn harsh.

I think nullifying results is always a big risk this far after the fact. Of course, they could have banned him for 30 months starting now (by by most GTs for the next 3 years). At least he keeps his classics and GT win

 

[Hillavoider]

Delagado thinks this is wrong as when he doped he didn't get punished, why should valverde get punished? dopers shouldn't be punished, especially spanish dopers, why should they be punished, i mean dopers gunna dope.

 

[Dewulf]

Delagado thinks this is wrong as when he doped he didn't get punished, why should valverde get punished? dopers shouldn't be punished, especially spanish dopers, why should they be punished, i mean dopers gunna dope.

Yeah maybe this explains Delgado's comments, that and the fact he's from the same "dopers r us" country. (NOT that every spaniard is a fiend, BUT not even Italy with its history of corruption at all levels of society, denounces like the spanish have for valverde).

Now, here's a new question - and cyclingnews mods, hey, I get a lot of value out of your site y'know, interviews, race updates etc...BUT:

Why isn't someone like Delgado called out (in text) when a story like this is run?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/delgado-on-the-defensive-over-valverde

Anyone new to the topic reading that may actually believe Pedro when he says "(Valverde) wanted to get on with things". As Ripper points out, this has taken so long because of legal delays initiated by Valverde. Pedro is lying through his teeth (or just hasn't got a clue).

Of course a news site is obligated to report what significant people have said as they said it...but it seems a bit counter-productive to publish opinions that are both incorrect and apparently from someone worth listening to, unless they are called out/corrected etc, in the same article.

Then again, perhaps some sponsors of the site wouldn't like that? Also granted there isn't any real editorial content on the site. But it's interesting (ie. frustrating) when you have to set other people straight on even the most basic facts about a case, because they've read an untruth perpetuated elsewhere in the press. The number of posts I've seen saying "yeah UCI took to long" is ridiculous.

 

[Hillavoider]

Yeah maybe this explains Delgado's comments, that and the fact he's from the same "dopers r us" country. (NOT that every spaniard is a fiend, BUT not even Italy with its history of corruption at all levels of society, denounces like the spanish have for valverde).

Now, here's a new question - and cyclingnews mods, hey, I get a lot of value out of your site y'know, interviews, race updates etc...BUT:

Why isn't someone like Delgado called out (in text) when a story like this is run?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/delgado-on-the-defensive-over-valverde

Anyone new to the topic reading that may actually believe Pedro when he says "(Valverde) wanted to get on with things". As Ripper points out, this has taken so long because of legal delays initiated by Valverde. Pedro is lying through his teeth (or just hasn't got a clue).

Of course a news site is obligated to report what significant people have said as they said it...but it seems a bit counter-productive to publish opinions that are both incorrect and apparently from someone worth listening to, unless they are called out/corrected etc, in the same article.

Then again, perhaps some sponsors of the site wouldn't like that? Also granted there isn't any real editorial content on the site. But it's interesting (ie. frustrating) when you have to set other people straight on even the most basic facts about a case, because they've read an untruth perpetuated elsewhere in the press. The number of posts I've seen saying "yeah UCI took to long" is ridiculous.

i agree......

 

[campagnolo1]

good riddance

it's about time. i don't care how long it took. his blood with epo... basso was banned for his untainted blood just being there.

funny how it's only the spanish who ***** about the cheat being called out.

good riddance.

 

[M Sport]

Anyone new to the topic reading that may actually believe Pedro when he says "(Valverde) wanted to get on with things". As Ripper points out, this has taken so long because of legal delays initiated by Valverde. Pedro is lying through his teeth (or just hasn't got a clue).

While I agree entirely with sentence Valverde just got your comments regarding delays are actually incorrect. OP happened in 2006, he was formally charged around February 2009, and initially suspended around April 2009. That's three years of delays he had no control over!

The last year he and the UCI has spent appealing it, you could argue he has caused that delay.

CAS actually acknowledged in their decision that Valverde had faced unusually long delays not of his making. But didn't discount the sentence lol.

 

[Animal]

A huge part of that delay was the Spanish authorities simply withholding evidence!

To protect their athletes.

They can't have it every which way!

 

[icefire]

A huge part of that delay was the Spanish authorities simply withholding evidence!

To protect their athletes.

They can't have it every which way!

Evidence is withheld by the judge alone, not by any other authority. And the judge is just acting according to the Law. If the judge releases the evidences he runs the risk of being sued by breach of duty of law, which is the worst accusation a judge can face.

 

[Anonymous]

ANybody know what happens about this years results.. Obviously his wins are removed and 2nd place etc move up, but does this happen globally

ie. do i need to go back and move everyones placings around for all races he was involved in..

and if so, I know he did Romandie, anyone remember what else?