Valverde, can't look himself in the mirror..

[gingerwallaceafro]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-i-didnt-do-anything-wrong

I don't know what it is, perhaps it's something deep within the psyche of some people where they just can't accept the reality of their actions..

 

[Libertine Seguros]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-i-didnt-do-anything-wrong

I don't know what it is, perhaps it's something deep within the psyche of some people where they just can't accept the reality of their actions..

To be fair, the interview they culled that from was asking him in blunt, half-formed sentences about drugs and doping. Just staying quiet on the issue wasn't really an option he was being allowed to take. So either he craps on the team that supported him throughout and continues to support him to this day (and risk alienating sponsors of course) and all the fans who continued to rally behind him, or he continues to parrot this nonsense.

You can see why he'd continue to parrot the nonsense.

 

[craig1985]

The fact that he rode for Kelme was enough to convince me that he was up to no good so I don't buy his nonsense either. A Kelme training camp for the Vuelta included visiting the local hospital!

 

[pedaling squares]

To be fair, the interview they culled that from was asking him in blunt, half-formed sentences about drugs and doping. Just staying quiet on the issue wasn't really an option he was being allowed to take. So either he craps on the team that supported him throughout and continues to support him to this day (and risk alienating sponsors of course) and all the fans who continued to rally behind him, or he continues to parrot this nonsense.

You can see why he'd continue to parrot the nonsense.

I haven't translated the transcript of the El Tiempo interview, but how was remaining silent not an option? What prevented Valverde from trotting out the usual phrases about that all being in the past, not wanting to re-open old wounds, being thankful to his sponsors for believing him, and looking forward to the 2012 season? From what I read in the the CN article, and granted it was only quoting part of one side of the conversation, Valverde used the interview as a platform to utter nonsense and lies that would make even Ivan Basso blush.

 

[Berzin]

An unrepentant doper, so what else is new.

Unless the lid is being blown off the world of organized doping in cycling, getting angry at one particular rider who remains in denial isn't going to do anyone any good.

He served his time, and now he's back. Time to get over it.

 

[Parera]

Valverde, what a monster. A regular Jerry Sandusky.

 

[hrotha]

An unrepentant doper, so what else is new.

Unless the lid is being blown off the world of organized doping in cycling, getting angry at one particular rider who remains in denial isn't going to do anyone any good.

He served his time, and now he's back. Time to get over it.

He's not being attacked because he doped, but because he's insulting our intelligence.

I too wish he'd go the "no comment" route if he's not going to man up and tell the truth.

 

[shadowblue]

Valverde, what a monster. A regular Jerry Sandusky.

oh, seriously? get some perspective on what really matters in life, will ya?

 

[spetsa]

oh, seriously? get some perspective on what really matters in life, will ya?

Enlighten me oh wise one. On what level does being a lying fraud get a free pass in your world?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Enlighten me oh wise one. On what level does being a lying fraud get a free pass in your world?

Alejandro Valverde doped, and then pretended he hadn't, and continues to do so.

Jerry Sandusky is charged with 40 counts of sexual abuse of children.

To give perspective, Alejandro Valverde cheated a bunch of guys, many of whom were cheating too, out of earnings and fame. Jerry Sandusky ruined and damaged several young people, and was kept in his job long after his predilection was known about. Valverde shouldn't get a free pass, but the term "monster" is not really applicable here, when it's usually reserved for the Josef Fritzls and Jeffrey Dahmers of the world.

The poster you quoted's only error was not noting that Parera's post equating the crimes of Valverde and Sandusky was more than likely being ironic about the extent of the vilification of Valverde.

 

[Parera]

The poster you quoted's only error was not noting that Parera's post equating the crimes of Valverde and Sandusky was more than likely being ironic about the extent of the vilification of Valverde.

I'll make sure to add 482 emoticons to my next ironic post to avoid confusion.

Maybe from being a baseball fan most of my life (and a San Francisco Giants fan no less) I have a high tolerance for guys who cheat and lie about it. It's just not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Unlike people like Jerry Sandusky, who destroyed innocent lives, Valverde is hardly a blip on my "things that disgust me" radar.

 

[Escarabajo]

There is something about the Valverde story that I can not digest very well.

“I suggested that they compare it [his DNA – ed.] in a neutral laboratory, but they refused this in Italy, and for that they sanctioned me because they compared my DNA in that country without my presence,” Valverde said. “They said that the plasma bag was mine, but they wouldn’t even do that to a criminal. None of what they did was legal.”

Is this right? Maybe some forists can bring some light to this statement. The problem with these stories is that we usually hear from the defense but not from the counterpart.

 

[roundabout]

My biggest problem isn't Valverde but the people trying to put a more positive spin on his recent moronic statements.

Like how he had to say what he said since being honest would upset the delicate psyche of his fans (probably those that still believe in the tooth fairy or think that the Moon landings were faked).

All I can say is huh.

 

[Benotti69]

There is something about the Valverde story that I can not digest very well.



Is this right? Maybe some forists can bring some light to this statement. The problem with these stories is that we usually hear from the defense but not from the counterpart.

Yep if it wasn't legal he would have been in the court of European human rights for alleged abuse of his human rights to be treated justly. I call BS.

 

[roundabout]

There is something about the Valverde story that I can not digest very well.



Is this right? Maybe some forists can bring some light to this statement. The problem with these stories is that we usually hear from the defense but not from the counterpart.

And I quote CAS

There is no convincing evidence merely speculative arguments that there was anything with the samples that were tested, with the taking of the blood for those samples, with the transport of the samples to the said laboratories and/or the storage and handling of those samples there and/or with the analysis for EPO and or DNA respectively.

Just another cheat trying to cast doubt on the process that caught him.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

There is something about the Valverde story that I can not digest very well.



Is this right? Maybe some forists can bring some light to this statement. The problem with these stories is that we usually hear from the defense but not from the counterpart.

Valverde went with the procedural route because some aspects of how the sample was obtained and what the other sample was used for and so on were seemingly dubious. However, CAS ruled them acceptable and admissible and therefore any complaining further by him about this is simply irrelevant and stupid.

The DNA thing was a bunch of hot air really. He offered to have a DNA test as long as it was done on neutral ground (or Spain? Can't remember exactly). CONI basically said (figuratively speaking) "we don't need that. We've already got your DNA, from the 2008 Tour test, remember? We matched that to the blood bag. We don't care what test you do outside Italy or even in it for that matter, we've got you".

 

[hektoren]

Valverde went with the procedural route because some aspects of how the sample was obtained and what the other sample was used for and so on were seemingly dubious. However, CAS ruled them acceptable and admissible and therefore any complaining further by him about this is simply irrelevant and stupid.

The DNA thing was a bunch of hot air really. He offered to have a DNA test as long as it was done on neutral ground (or Spain? Can't remember exactly). CONI basically said (figuratively speaking) "we don't need that. We've already got your DNA, from the 2008 Tour test, remember? We matched that to the blood bag. We don't care what test you do outside Italy or even in it for that matter, we've got you".

You're obviously way too apologetic. He knew that blood from Fuentes' fridge was his. Period. Claiming innocence when it's been proven as fact that he's dirty as hell isn't just "irrelevant and stupid". I can forgive people being stupid and irrelevant. What I can't forgive is when an elite cyclist with an intimate knowledge of his sport, guilty of doping and knowing it, force the UCI to allocate long man-hours as well as big money to an all-too predictable process instead of just admitting it. When he's STILL claiming innocence he's just spitting in every cycling-aficionados face.

 

[T_S_A_R]

if we were talking about a murder trial evidence that disapeared from one country and reappeared in another with no official record of how it got there would be inadmissable.

however cas are looking at the balance of probabilities rather than something being beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You're obviously way too apologetic. He knew that blood from Fuentes' fridge was his. Period. Claiming innocence when it's been proven as fact that he's dirty as hell isn't just "irrelevant and stupid". I can forgive people being stupid and irrelevant. What I can't forgive is when an elite cyclist with an intimate knowledge of his sport, guilty of doping and knowing it, force the UCI to allocate long man-hours as well as big money to an all-too predictable process instead of just admitting it. When he's STILL claiming innocence he's just spitting in every cycling-aficionados face.

How many convicted dopers have 'just admitted it' rather than fighting their case? Sure, several have admitted it way down the line, once their cases were summarily dismissed. Di Luca, for example, kicked up a storm about conspiracies against him, but then admitted when he eventually came back. White Knight David Millar protested his innocence until the evidence was waved in his face. Basso was nailed for "intention to dope" as if a guy who wins the Giro by 10 minutes clean suddenly thinks "I need to dope to get to the next level". Vino not only claimed conspiracy but dictated the terms of his comeback to the very team he was banned from. Not even Valverde did that, and he's come straight back to the same team. Stefan Schumacher continued to fight his case months into the ban using procedural errors as a case on much shakier grounds than Valverde's grounds that were eventually thrown out. Floyd Landis only came clean when his entire life had fallen apart to the extent that we were worried he'd end up another tragic story found alone in his motel room. Nuno Ribeiro insisted that it must have been the team doctor because he'd never take anything like that even though he'd already failed a test earlier in his career. Mikel Astarloza talked of how stupid anybody (such as himself) would be to use first generation EPO and returned to the same team he left; the biggest difference between him and Valverde is that fewer people care what he has to say, so don't give him a platform from which to protest his innocence.

Either vilify them all, or don't vilify them. Valverde gets treated like he's worse than them, but really the main difference between him and any other doper who's not pleaded for penance or spoken out and run the risk of being alienated (see: Sella, Jaksche, Kohl, Frei) is that his legal team were much better, and that he kept winning races and reminding people that he hadn't been banned yet.

It'll be interesting to hear what Franco Pellizotti says if he ever decides he wants to come back.

 

[pedaling squares]

Di Luca, Millar, Basso, Vino, Schumacher, Landis, Sella, Jaksche, Kohl, Frei... you could find thousands of posts in this forum vilifying these men for their acts and/or their lies. And Hamilton, and Ricco, and....

You hit the nail on the head, a big problem with Valverde was that he continued to race, and to win, while dragging the process out until it became farcical.

 

[roundabout]

if we were talking about a murder trial evidence that disapeared from one country and reappeared in another with no official record of how it got there would be inadmissable.

however cas are looking at the balance of probabilities rather than something being beyond a reasonable doubt.

Except that this is not the case with Valverde.

 

[hrotha]

Is it any wonder that people pay more attention to Valverde than to other dopers? He's at the top of the game, he's one of the best riders of the last decade, and one of the most successful ones. Of course he's more important than most other dopers. The same applies to the likes of Armstrong or Contador.

I don't see any inconsistency here. Valverde is a more important rider so he gets talked about more. To clean up cycling, banning Valverde is more crucial than banning fifteen Freis.

 

[hektoren]

Either vilify them all, or don't vilify them. Valverde gets treated like he's worse than them.

I have no problem vilifying anybody who does what Piti did, and he doesn't get treated worse than anybody. He ensured that the UCI (with all their faults, they're still the only association we've got) had to spend millions that could have been put to better use, and for that fact only he deserves any amount of scorn coming his way. And I won't even start discussing what effect cases like that has on the total economy for cycling, sponsor-wise.
You just don't try to overturn DNA-evidence on technicalities like that. Everybody knows the Piti-bag was his, whether the evidence was admissible or not. It turned out that it was, as the chain of evidence was clearly documented and the blood-bag was evidence handed to the Italians in accordance with international agreements ratified by Spain.

I long for the day when the strategy Mr. Pitiful et al followed is awarded with a ban for life. That would be justifiable IMHO. Confess, play straight and you're banned for two years. Deny, drag your feet and get kicked out for life would sit very well with me.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I long for the day when the strategy Mr. Pitiful et al followed is awarded with a ban for life. That would be justifiable IMHO. Confess, play straight and you're banned for two years. Deny, drag your feet and get kicked out for life would sit very well with me.

They've already brought in legislation to extend bans by a year for 'aggravating circumstances'. They tried to apply this with di Luca but it didn't go ahead. Unfortunately this legislation was brought in between the beginning of the Valverde case and the end, and therefore they couldn't discuss bringing it in for him as this sanction had not been available at the time of the offences. After all, his case would pretty much be the gold standard to which other 'aggravating circumstances' would be held.

 

[pig pen]

I was all in favour of his comeback after his suspension all because i was fascinated to see him go head to head with gilbert in the ardennes classics. Then you see this and this type of nonsense he spouts about how he done nothing wrong.

He might not be everybody"s tea but at least david millar in the end admitted to his actions and openly spoke about it there after. People like valverde and vino really get under my skin. Even david harmon hates vino.

But who i really despise is di luca who i think should count his lucky stars that he is back in the sport at all. He was recorded in phone conversations with eddy mazzoleni in which he was supposed to be talking about doping products in 2004. Then he gets his ban reduced last year to 9 months coz he cooperated with investigators telling all about doping techniques. Yet he claims to this day he didnt spit in the soup. Dont pull the wool over our eyes.

Valverde did two things wrong. He was caught and he did not take his ban like a man.
As far as his blood doping with Fuentes, it is all part of the sport.(and all olympic and professional sports.)
We can make an analogy here with NASCAR guys lightening their cars or boosting their horsepower, or WWii RAF and USAF airmen tunneling out of German prison camps. As with professional cycling it is their jobs.
I have not an issue with valve-piti, he was caught and served his ban. A fine professional, look forward to his return.
Anyone who has issue with Valverdes' issue, well, here is a kleenex.