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

[joe_papp]

...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...

Sorry to harsh your buzz but Saint Millar hardly admitted the entirety of his actions and claimed to have doped only to a degree slightly worse than Ivan "I only intended to dope" Basso.

Worse still, Millar is on record with the BBC blaming everything on Cofidis and his teammates.

He tells the story that is most favorable to him to suit the audience to which he's speaking, via the media outlet of the day.

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.

That's some funny sh^t!!! lol (except the bit about Floyd...that hits a little too close to home)

...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.

To some degree that's what happened in Zajicek's case. Granted, he's a small fish compared to Floyd or Valverde, but his abuse of the process was taken into account when he was sentenced - to a life ban. And at the same time, my case shows what's to be gained in a situation where life bans are finally on the table. I cooperated at every turn for over four years and 1) stayed out of jail thanks in no small part to USADA's willingness to appropriately value my cooperation and make the Court aware of it; and 2) I drew only an 8 year ban for a second offense that included trafficking, with half the ban credited to time served (that's why I never so much as thought about racing again in 2008-->I knew what awaited me.).

It's inevitable that things are different and more complicated when there are millions of dollars at stake, however. It's simply inevitable.

 

[MarkvW]

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.

Riders need a strong union so that the rules are evenly enforced. The riders would be justified in opposing any rule that made the banning of any one rider "more crucial" than the banning of any other. Emphasizing enforcement against the good riders is just as bad as de-emphasizing enforcementt against the good riders.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

That's some funny sh^t!!! lol (except the bit about Floyd...that hits a little too close to home)

It wasn't intended to be a light-hearted comment about Floyd; that was beginning to seem too much like a very real possibility. People may like to see a cheat get their comeuppance, but the dogpile on Floyd went far beyond the 'kicking a man when he's down' level.

 

[craig1985]

Riders need a strong union so that the rules are evenly enforced. The riders would be justified in opposing any rule that made the banning of any one rider "more crucial" than the banning of any other. Emphasizing enforcement against the good riders is just as bad as de-emphasizing enforcementt against the good riders.

I agree the riders need a stronger union, but I fear that we will have an NFL and MLB style scenario when it comes to anti-doping testing. Fail a test and miss the Classics but comeback for the Giro or something and win a stage and you are a hero.

 

[ultimobici]

Just saw this and felt a little better

Teams trying to benefit from a big name doper returning will not reap the benefits until 2 years after the ban is finished.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverdes-success-will-not-benefit-movistar

Alejandro Valverde may have completed the sporting ban which was the consequence of a protracted Operacion Puerto case, but the Spaniard's punishment is not yet concluded: the UCI confirmed to Cyclingnews that none of his points will count toward his team's sporting criteria - the ranking which is used by the UCI in determining which teams will be in the following year's WorldTour. Indeed, none of his points will count for the next two seasons.

Valverde is currently sitting in second in the WorldTour rankings after coming in as the runner-up to GreenEdge's Simon Gerrans at the Tour Down Under, and while his results will add to the team's tally for the WorldTour rankings, it will not help his Movistar team when it comes time for the UCI to figure out who stays and who goes in the 2013 WorldTour. The UCI ranks the teams by rider points accumulated, team points and other criteria such as ethical and financial merits, with only the top 15 teams earning automatic consideration for the next WorldTour season.

The UCI took the decision to disqualify riders who are returning from bans from scoring points toward the team rankings for two years following their return from a anti-doping rule violation. The rule was ratified by the Pro Cycling Council in Copenhagen last autumn.

Earlier in 2011, the idea was presented to the PCC by former Credit Agricole manager Roger Legeay, and was accepted for consideration by the UCI's management committee. Teams association (AIGCP) president Jonathan Vaughters confirmed that he voted in favour of the rule on behalf of the teams in the Copenhagen meeting. "It was supported by the majority of the teams. Its a good rule, I think," Vaughters said.

So effectively their ban is 4 years in terms of usefulness to the teams. Interesting.....

 

[Nilsson]

Very bad and annoying rule. When a rider returns from his ban, you let him return without any obstructions or you don't let him return at all.

Doing it like they're doing now is unfair to the rider and his team, could influence (the outcome of) races and totally undermines the goal of the 'Rider and Team Value-rankings': getting the best teams (and riders) in the best races.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Teams trying to benefit from a big name doper returning will not reap the benefits until 2 years after the ban is finished.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverdes-success-will-not-benefit-movistar


So effectively their ban is 4 years in terms of usefulness to the teams. Interesting.....

And 5 years with regard to racing in Italy - not an level playing field.

 

[luckyboy]

Who cares, dopers deserve all the punishment they get.

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.

Riders should be fined the exact amount the UCI had to spend on proving their guilt in court. Would serve as a deterrent, plus the UCI would recoup the money anyway.

Side note: the wild disparity in fines and punishments is ridiculous. Mosquera gets three years out, fined €276,675. Di Luca and Astarloza got way less than that, and Valverde didn't get any fine. Oscar Sevilla tested positive for the exact same thing as Mosquera and got 6 months and a CHF1,500 fine

 

[roundabout]

I've read somewhere that Mosquera's fine is equal to the prize money he earned in the 2010 Vuelta. I have to double check if that is actually the case.

But I agree, there should be a clear set of rules on the size of the fines.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Very bad and annoying rule. When a rider returns from his ban, you let him return without any obstructions or you don't let him return at all.

Doing it like they're doing now is unfair to the rider and his team, could influence (the outcome of) races and totally undermines the goal of the 'Rider and Team Value-rankings': getting the best teams (and riders) in the best races.

I think it is a proper and fair rule -it is a punishment, as long as it is applied to all then it is fair.

There was a 'rule' (more an agreement) previously that stopped returning riders joining a ProTour team for a further 2 years, again good idea as far as I am concerned. Unfortunately it went out the window when some big names were caught.

And 5 years with regard to racing in Italy - not an level playing field.

5 years?? No - Valverde was banned from Italy for 2 years from May 2009, CAS ruled to make it a Global ban in June, but because he already had served part of a ban in Italy they ruled to allow him return to racing on 1st January 2012.

Who cares, dopers deserve all the punishment they get.



Riders should be fined the exact amount the UCI had to spend on proving their guilt in court. Would serve as a deterrent, plus the UCI would recoup the money anyway.

Side note: the wild disparity in fines and punishments is ridiculous. Mosquera gets three years out, fined €276,675. Di Luca and Astarloza got way less than that, and Valverde didn't get any fine. Oscar Sevilla tested positive for the exact same thing as Mosquera and got 6 months and a CHF1,500 fine

I agree with you about the fines - there needs to be more consistency.
But in relation to Mosquera, he was not banned for 3 years, only 2.
He was allowed race until his hearing but race organizers did not want him so Vacansoleil would pull him. He was still getting paid and part of the team. The smart thing for Mosquera to have done was suspend himself until the hearing and that would have counted against his 2 year ban - basically, he gambled and lost.

 

[The Hitch]

A 3 year ban is a 3 year ban.

He is unable to race for 3 years because of the positive.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A 3 year ban is a 3 year ban.

He is unable to race for 3 years because of the positive.

A 2 year ban is not a 3 year ban.
From the UCI list of doping offenses.

 

[Louison]

A 2 year ban is not a 3 year ban.
From the UCI list of doping offenses.

...and the ban was a joke since he was allowed to race for months before being punished and his ban did nothing but not allow him to race, but he could sign a new deal and get equipment/kit for his "new" team.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...and the ban was a joke since he was allowed to race for months before being punished and his ban did nothing but not allow him to race, but he could sign a new deal and get equipment/kit for his "new" team.

Ya, ah if you are allowed race then it is not a ban, which is the point. His ban did not start until November 2011.

 

[Louison]

Ya, ah if you are allowed race then it is not a ban, which is the point. His ban did not start until November 2011.

Try re-reading my post in it's entirety...not just the part you put in bold.


~edited by mod~

 

[doolols]

~edited by mod~

Yet another personal comment. This is getting beyond a joke.

P.S. I have reported your post.