• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Valverde - my suspension is a great injustice

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I don't get it.

Valverde won 2009 Vuelta, he was not tested positive so he won the vuelta fairly, that means "clean".

You suggest that even when riders win and they dont test positive they are cheaters, liars, dopers, etc? Or this thought is only applied to Valverde?

Poor thinking
 
Sometimes it is just better to shut up.

He has been found guilty, lost his last appeal, and now instead of just holding tight for one year till he can race again, he's spouting off about how unfair and unjust this all is. He's not alone either, as others have done the same. Nevertheless, it still drives me nuts. While I appreciate a confession like many others, I would be much better with someone just shutting up and doing their time than all this BS denial. It's like watching a politician!
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
It does seem rather unjust that after they "finally" caught Valverde, the entire Puerto case was "finally' over. Even though dozens of other riders and who knows how many other athletes, went untouched. None the less, two wrongs don't make a right. He doped, was caught, and was finally suspended.

I tend to agree with the others. He seemed to show no contrition, and lied every step of the way. He didn't even come up with any sort of realistic explanation/excuses that could have helped his cause. His main arguments were that it wasn't fair, and he didn't dope (despite hard evidence to the contrary). It's like he's from the Lance Armstrong school of arguing.

I still feel now, as I did a few years ago, that it would have benefited him to find a way to cooperate with REFC by giving information to help combat doping, and give a humbling apology. He may have gotten some sort of reduced suspension that held up to CAS. Now, there's no way he's coming back until his suspension is over. And the sad part is, once he's back, I'm sure he'll go fully back to upholding the omerta as he always has in the past. :(

If the Spanish authorities had handled it as they should have, Valverde and all the others would have been dealt their punishments as the rules require. However, because of rampant corruption and nationalism this didn't take place.

The real injustice, if any is to be found in this case, is that it took a third party, namely Italy, to do the job which Spain had blatantly neglected. Valverde's entire defense rested upon the ambiguity of whether or not Torri and the Italian prosecutors had any legal purchase to do so. TAS said, yes, they did, at which point the Spaniard should have provided his full confession, but has continued with his pathetic denials because evidently he realizes that there is enough moral support in his home country to justify what to most everyone else appears unjustifiable. It makes me wonder if this had been a British case, or say a German or Austrian case, how those states and publics would have responded to the situation. In Italy we are used to having a level of tolerance toward corruption and unethical behavior among the political class, as the Berlusconi regime painfully attests, that would be unheard of in an Anglo-Saxon environment, because the level of civility there is higher. Yet Valverde's refusal to accept reality while maintaining his feeble and spurious defense, in light of the irrefutable evidence against him, is simply repulsive. Less for moralistic reasoning, as we have gone so far beyond that, but as an affront to human intelligence.

And it was so revealing what Fuente's said to his cell mate during his second arrest: that is, "if I go down, then what I have to say will make the soccer European and World championships go up in smoke in this country." This becomes tantamount to an admittance by the Spanish medic of systematic blood doping among the soccer block as well. It also affirms the suspicion we have always had regarding OP, namely that it was "permitted" to target the weak and less lucrative sport of cycling, so long as none of the Spanish riders were implicated and brought to justice (in fact the few that were, till now, were all foreigners and by their respective national sport bodies requesting information from Spain that it was willing to release abroad but not at home, until the Valv-Piti bloodsacks were finally conceded to Italy by Italian request). This, to try and save face, while simultaneously "protecting" the much more money churning sport of soccer that would thus seem to be untouchable; in what can only be regarded as a massive internal cover-up at the expense of a few foreigners.

So this becomes another case for injustice in the OP affair, though not of the type Valverde bemoans. It rather concerns the omerta' and a mafia like comportment of the Spanish state in order to suppress any efforts to bring down widespread doping practices among its soccer teams and players, as well as other sports which have given it immortal fame over the last decade like tennis, while sacrificing a few foreign riders who became the scapegoats. All of which is appalling, of course, and the only consolation has been from a few objective and intellectually honest Spanish journalists in dailies like El Pais; who have been just as scandalized as those looking in from the outside by the deplorable comportment of the Spanish sporting establishment and state in not seeing doping dealt with more seriously among its athletes like in Germany, Italy, France, Austria, etc.

There is no more charge to be added to the bill of indictment. Although it must be said that no soccer nation is doing their duty to cast doping within the sport under the light of justice and public scrutiny. However OP has undoubtedly been a lost opportunity that should have acted as a real catalist in seeing some positive gains in mounting an effective offensive to dismantal the regime of corruption and illicit practice that governs this quite powerful, as well most, professional sports.

PS. For those who would contest that there wasn't at the time a common law making doping a penal offense in Spain, as in other states, thus legally the evidence from OP could not have been released, etc. Well then the Spanish authorities, especially in light of blood sacks that were conceded by them to other countries, should have, had there been the political will to do so, promptly enacted a law and even made it retroactive so that those guilty could have been processed and brought to justice. But evidently it wasn't patriotically (nor economically) expedient to have done so immediately, which makes Spain's comportment all the more ghastly and Valverde's obstinacy that much more dysfunctional.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
Listening to this guy makes me feel sick!


I feel sorry for you that you stick up for this guy so religiously. The paragraph in bold is very wrong.

Why is it so wrong, sugarplum?

Do you think Damiano Cunego was doping when he won the 2004 Giro, four stages en route, and did things that he's never shown himself to be capable again?

Do you think Damiano Cunego was doping when he cheerfully smiled when people asked him why he couldn't keep up with Danilo di Luca on the climbs, and said "there are general classifications and there are life's classifications"?

Doping isn't a lightswitch. If you're caught doping, it throws suspicion over everything you ever did, of course it does, but it doesn't mean that you doped in every single race you ever entered. Cadel Evans (who we shall assume for the sake of an argument has always been clean, as though he has some dodgy team alliances in his past he hasn't been attached to anything concrete to date) could decide in June 2011 that he's getting older, he's going to have to turn to the dark side if he wants to win the Tour de France. If Cadel then tests positive in July, people will always suspect his previous performances... but it won't mean that they MUST HAVE been doped. It is purely idiotic to think that doping is like a lightswitch. It also means that if you once doped, say, back in the 90s when it was widespread, you can never attain redemption.

That's where Cunego as an example comes in. Cunego has been pretty un-subtle about implying that in his early career, he doped, but does not do so now, and that explains why he can no longer do some of the things he could do in 2004. As those references suggest that he was doping in 2004, do we roundly condemn every single performance he has ever done as being doped to the gills, because he has had the temerity to admit, or at least as near as he can get away with without jeopardising his career, that he has done wrong?

Plus, of course, to bring it all back around to Ally Vally, his number was marked by the UCI post-Puerto - as well it should have been. As he continued to race and win, he will have been subjected to a lot of tests, and as one of the riders the UCI and WADA were most suspicious of, he will have been subjected to a lot more tests. People like him and di Luca will have been tested among the highest number of times in that 2006-2009 period. Valverde turned every test back negative. Does that mean he's innocent of doping for that period? Of course not. But if the guy who's being tested the MOST is in the clear and you think he's up to something... it's gonna be easier for somebody who isn't winning as much, isn't as suspected, and isn't tested as often. So if Valverde was continuing to dope and get away with it, then it stands to reason that there are others falling through the cracks as well, because it would have been harder for Valverde than almost anybody else in the péloton to continue to dope and get results in that period - and yet, there's a good chance he managed it.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Visit site
Libertine Seguros said:
Why is it so wrong, sugarplum?

Do you think Damiano Cunego was doping when he won the 2004 Giro, four stages en route, and did things that he's never shown himself to be capable again?

Do you think Damiano Cunego was doping when he cheerfully smiled when people asked him why he couldn't keep up with Danilo di Luca on the climbs, and said "there are general classifications and there are life's classifications"?

Doping isn't a lightswitch. If you're caught doping, it throws suspicion over everything you ever did, of course it does, but it doesn't mean that you doped in every single race you ever entered. Cadel Evans (who we shall assume for the sake of an argument has always been clean, as though he has some dodgy team alliances in his past he hasn't been attached to anything concrete to date) could decide in June 2011 that he's getting older, he's going to have to turn to the dark side if he wants to win the Tour de France. If Cadel then tests positive in July, people will always suspect his previous performances... but it won't mean that they MUST HAVE been doped. It is purely idiotic to think that doping is like a lightswitch. It also means that if you once doped, say, back in the 90s when it was widespread, you can never attain redemption.

That's where Cunego as an example comes in. Cunego has been pretty un-subtle about implying that in his early career, he doped, but does not do so now, and that explains why he can no longer do some of the things he could do in 2004. As those references suggest that he was doping in 2004, do we roundly condemn every single performance he has ever done as being doped to the gills, because he has had the temerity to admit, or at least as near as he can get away with without jeopardising his career, that he has done wrong?

Plus, of course, to bring it all back around to Ally Vally, his number was marked by the UCI post-Puerto - as well it should have been. As he continued to race and win, he will have been subjected to a lot of tests, and as one of the riders the UCI and WADA were most suspicious of, he will have been subjected to a lot more tests. People like him and di Luca will have been tested among the highest number of times in that 2006-2009 period. Valverde turned every test back negative. Does that mean he's innocent of doping for that period? Of course not. But if the guy who's being tested the MOST is in the clear and you think he's up to something... it's gonna be easier for somebody who isn't winning as much, isn't as suspected, and isn't tested as often. So if Valverde was continuing to dope and get away with it, then it stands to reason that there are others falling through the cracks as well, because it would have been harder for Valverde than almost anybody else in the péloton to continue to dope and get results in that period - and yet, there's a good chance he managed it.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was more saying that your post was very wrong because you seemed to suggest that Valverde was treated like a pariah on these forum boards. Anyone who has any consistency would treat Valverde the same as any other doper. The reason he might cop it a bit more is because he is acting like his ban is a great injustice. That makes me want to puke. The Hitch is sort of right when he said I hated valverde because he beat evans many times but that he still got to compete when he should of been banned. It is that and it is also his attitude. I also find it hard to watch guys who have cheated to victory in the past. Yes people deserve a 2nd chance but watching vino, basso, etc succeed this year was hard to watch. Those two lied about doping for a very long time. That is why I found it hard to watch valverde in 2009, his attitude and justice not being served.

I think it is a fair assumption that if you doped once that you doped through your whole career. It is fair to assume that. Doesn't mean the assumption is alright.

btw, unless you go on the record and say, "I doped" and serve a ban then you don't deserve to be trusted . Just because Cunego has implied that he doped in the past doesn't mean we should trust him. Anybody who dopes should have all their wins be put under suspicion.I would be more inclined to trust a guy like Basso than Cunego who at least admitted that he doped in the past. Telling half the truth is ain't better than lying in my opinion.
 
If you wanted to make a different point, you shouldn't have highlighted the paragraph about thinking it idiotic to treat doping like a lightswitch when you quoted it.

Valverde is treated like a pariah on this forum, and worse than most other dopers. Main reason, not because he acts like it's an injustice - others have done that too. But because he was acting like it was an injustice whilst still riding. Di Luca complained about the injustices, but he was on the shelf, so he was just a marginalised crazy who got caught. Valverde was reminding them of his guilt every time they switched on their TV to watch cycling because not only was he still riding, but unlike those guys down in Portuguese continental teams, he was there at the top level and still winning. So he came to embody everything that was wrong with the way cycling was handling doping, because he was getting away with it but still whining about his treatment.

What do you want Cunego to do, voluntarily go "yes, ban me, I want to go for two years without a salary and have that on my CV"? Cunego's been about as candid as he can get away with being without putting his livelihood in jeopardy. If they go back and test his 2004 samples and he tests positive then sure, ban him, but if not, then what makes Basso more noble than Cunego? Basso wouldn't have volunteered to be banned, instead he tried to worm around it with this comical "intending to dope" line, as if you suddenly think "I'm not good enough" after winning the Giro by ten minutes. You'd seriously be more willing to trust the guy who's cheated, made excuses about it, served a ban and then come back and won a GT than the guy who's not served a ban but come as close to admitting it as his desire not to lose his job can get him, and whose limits of ability have dropped off appreciably since he started displaying this candour?
 
Aguirre said:
You suggest that even when riders win and they dont test positive they are cheaters, liars, dopers, etc? Or this thought is only applied to Valverde?

Yes like the raft of great clean riders never to test positive in the last 10 years - Armstrong (must have been clean in 2009 as he didn't test positive), Basso, Ullrich (XTC withstanding), Rasmussen, Scarponi, Schleck, Leipheimer etc etc etc.

I think you need to do a bit more reading of The Clinic to understand that doping tests are largely ineffective, especially when it comes to dealing with the key method of autologous transfusions and the key substances of hGH and EPO. The next layer is the favourable treatment and corruption from the UCI.

By suggesting that Valverde was not blood doping in the 2009 Vuelta, you're also implying that Sanchez, Evans, Gesink, Basso, Mosquera and Rodriguez were also clean. The current state of cycling tells us that we haven't had a "clean sweep" of the top5 for a long time, why should the 2009 Vuelta be any different (especially given the fact one of those has since tested positive in a GT).
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Visit site
Libertine Seguros said:
What do you want Cunego to do, voluntarily go "yes, ban me, I want to go for two years without a salary and have that on my CV"? Cunego's been about as candid as he can get away with being without putting his livelihood in jeopardy. If they go back and test his 2004 samples and he tests positive then sure, ban him, but if not, then what makes Basso more noble than Cunego? Basso wouldn't have volunteered to be banned, instead he tried to worm around it with this comical "intending to dope" line, as if you suddenly think "I'm not good enough" after winning the Giro by ten minutes. You'd seriously be more willing to trust the guy who's cheated, made excuses about it, served a ban and then come back and won a GT than the guy who's not served a ban but come as close to admitting it as his desire not to lose his job can get him, and whose limits of ability have dropped off appreciably since he started displaying this candour?

Basso is not the best example and neither is ricco or even Vinokourov. Maybe Millar is a better example. Even so with basso, he still served a ban for what he did even though we all know he didn't fully admit to the truth he still spoke up about what he did and served a ban. That is why Basso is more noble. Doesn't mean I didn't find it hard watching Basso winning the Giro or that I completely trsut him. I am wary of trusting him whatever he says. Though others are very forgiving of riders especially the French with Richard Virenque. Exposed as a cheat but the years after that the french came to love the guy.

Who would you trust is clean?
- Rider X implying that he had doped in the past but never admitting to it or serving a ban
OR
-Rider Y who gets caught but then admits he was wrong, serves a ban and comes back to cycling to race.

Neither deserve trust imo but if I had to trust one I would choose rider Y.
 
I think there is a general rule here towards riders suspended for doping.

If they confess and their confession is seen as sincere, they tend to be held in high esteem no matter what digressions they may have partaken in. There are many examples of this, and I personally have a tendancy towards this attitude.

If they don't confess, they have very little sympathy except from their personal fanboys. I believe this is what is happening with Valverde. He was never treated too harshly considering he is a lying doper, but he will never achieve redemption status until he stops lying. There is nothing worse than someone who blatently lies against the obvious truth.

It always bugs me to read that "the French" love Virenque. He has retained some popularity (especially among grandmothers), but has been consistently lampooned by many fans and press alike ever since his pathetic attempts to make us believe he didn't dope. To say he is loved by the French is a gross exageration IMO.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
Who would you trust is clean?
- Rider X implying that he had doped in the past but never admitting to it or serving a ban
OR
-Rider Y who gets caught but then admits he was wrong, serves a ban and comes back to cycling to race.

Neither deserve trust imo but if I had to trust one I would choose rider Y.

Rider X without a doubt.

X (Cunego) doesnt have to imply. It does him no good. Its actually bad for him. But he does it anyway. Hes not going to admit he doped because he knows all his competirtors were doing it to and would sooner step over their own mothers than admit it. It would be not moral but STUPID to admit aht he was doping, tarnishing his own career.

He imlies because he thinks its wrong.

Rider Y admits he was wrong because for him that is the better option. If he continues to fight it it gets him knowhere because he still has to serve the ban. He might as well claim " a moment of weakness" like Piepoli, take the ban and come back better off. Rider y doesnt show any remorse because he doesnt name all his suppliers and co dopers. He is doing the BARE MINIMUM to ensure a nice return.

He takes the ban happily knowing that omerta persists and he will have a line on more drugs when he returns.

So Rider x is doing it out of the goodness of his own heart and understands that it is wrong. It gives him no benefit whatsoever. Rider Y on the other hand clearly doesnt show any remorse or he would say EVERYTHING he knows, and is clearly doing it solely for his own benefit.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
If you wanted to make a different point, you shouldn't have highlighted the paragraph about thinking it idiotic to treat doping like a lightswitch when you quoted it.

Valverde is treated like a pariah on this forum, and worse than most other dopers. Main reason, not because he acts like it's an injustice - others have done that too. But because he was acting like it was an injustice whilst still riding. Di Luca complained about the injustices, but he was on the shelf, so he was just a marginalised crazy who got caught. Valverde was reminding them of his guilt every time they switched on their TV to watch cycling because not only was he still riding, but unlike those guys down in Portuguese continental teams, he was there at the top level and still winning. So he came to embody everything that was wrong with the way cycling was handling doping, because he was getting away with it but still whining about his treatment.

What do you want Cunego to do, voluntarily go "yes, ban me, I want to go for two years without a salary and have that on my CV"? Cunego's been about as candid as he can get away with being without putting his livelihood in jeopardy. If they go back and test his 2004 samples and he tests positive then sure, ban him, but if not, then what makes Basso more noble than Cunego? Basso wouldn't have volunteered to be banned, instead he tried to worm around it with this comical "intending to dope" line, as if you suddenly think "I'm not good enough" after winning the Giro by ten minutes. You'd seriously be more willing to trust the guy who's cheated, made excuses about it, served a ban and then come back and won a GT than the guy who's not served a ban but come as close to admitting it as his desire not to lose his job can get him, and whose limits of ability have dropped off appreciably since he started displaying this candour?

Why are you trying to defend the undefendable?

Who here praised Basso or DiLuca for their pathetic behavior?

And, by the way, both have since admitted their culpability. All we need from Valverde is a simple admission and he can be elevated to a different status. His career is already tarnished, so nothing would change. Accept the insults to intelligence. There's no different treatment by us, rather he is behaving outlandishly.
 
Apr 1, 2009
187
0
0
Visit site
Sorry chaps but im interested in the points stated above regarding Cunego implying he was on the sauce early in his career. Do you have any other qoutes attributed to this apart from the Life classifications above? I cant remember seeing or hearing about this before so would be interested.
Was watching him ride the 2006 Alp D'Huez stage in the 2006 Tour the other night (what an immortal stage that was) & was very impressed with Cunego on the Alpe. Lit it up at the start of the climb, lovely motion on the bike looking really comfortable throughout & at one stage let rip into Mazzolini for doing no work with him & Schleck then turned on the gas & that was the end of Mazzolini.
 
"The Damiano who won the Giro no longer exists". That's pretty damn clear.

Hitch has illustrated my point above - a rider who stands only to lose from implying his doping is inherently giving a more reliable testimony than one who stands to gain.

Valverde gets a rough ride because he denies ever doing it. But he's got so far on the excuses scale that admitting it will come with a rolling of eyes like di Luca (who'd been claiming conspiracy for 17 months before coming clean) unless he goes absolutely Landis on Fuentes and co. Which we all would like, but as a realist I know this isn't happening because Valverde is too sought after to ever be forced into a situation like Landis was. ACF offers David Millar as a counterexample of somebody who did it the 'right' way. But what did Millar actually DO? Did he name suppliers, doctors, other riders who doped? No. He came back acting like some white knight telling people not to do what he did, as if he wouldn't still have been doing it if he had half the chance. He rode for Saunier Duval! Saunier Duval! How are we meant to take him seriously? But it's a delicate balance. If you want your guys to pay lip service to apologies and basically, be good little PR dummies, then you think Basso and Millar did the right thing. If you want your guys to actually contribute to the fight against doping, then people like Sella and Sinkewitz are much more effective. But the péloton and the UCI don't like guys like Sella and Sinkewitz, because they'd rather keep a lid on things and conduct their own investigations (ie keep popping a few minor names to say the system's working). The problem with Valverde as far as the UCI was concerned was that he was a big name who they knew was crooked but couldn't nail. Him still being there was an affront to their clean cycling lip service, so they had to get rid of him.
 
The Hitch said:
The head of UCI.

And the other cyclists now point to the fact that one or two Valverdes have been caught to claim the system is working, hence they must be clean because they havent been caught. Which is what the media says as well.

You're beginning to understand the ramifications of the far-flung conspiracy. The detection of dopers is evidence that doping detection is failing. The masterminds behind the conspiracy are fiendishly ingenious. Keep looking. The truth is out there.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Libertine Seguros said:
"The Damiano who won the Giro no longer exists". That's pretty damn clear.

Hitch has illustrated my point above - a rider who stands only to lose from implying his doping is inherently giving a more reliable testimony than one who stands to gain.

Valverde gets a rough ride because he denies ever doing it. But he's got so far on the excuses scale that admitting it will come with a rolling of eyes like di Luca (who'd been claiming conspiracy for 17 months before coming clean) unless he goes absolutely Landis on Fuentes and co. Which we all would like, but as a realist I know this isn't happening because Valverde is too sought after to ever be forced into a situation like Landis was. ACF offers David Millar as a counterexample of somebody who did it the 'right' way. But what did Millar actually DO? Did he name suppliers, doctors, other riders who doped? No. He came back acting like some white knight telling people not to do what he did, as if he wouldn't still have been doing it if he had half the chance. He rode for Saunier Duval! Saunier Duval! How are we meant to take him seriously? But it's a delicate balance. If you want your guys to pay lip service to apologies and basically, be good little PR dummies, then you think Basso and Millar did the right thing. If you want your guys to actually contribute to the fight against doping, then people like Sella and Sinkewitz are much more effective. But the péloton and the UCI don't like guys like Sella and Sinkewitz, because they'd rather keep a lid on things and conduct their own investigations (ie keep popping a few minor names to say the system's working). The problem with Valverde as far as the UCI was concerned was that he was a big name who they knew was crooked but couldn't nail. Him still being there was an affront to their clean cycling lip service, so they had to get rid of him.

Sorry - but a major flaw in your arguments in support of Valderde is that his performance never diminished (actually, it got better) unlike Cunego.
 
Everyone played the denial/victimization game to the hilt, until that was either no longer possible, or else no longer expedient to do so. This is to be expected and isn't really the problem in this case, but rather the sad reality of a priviliged occupation. And besides two wrongs don't make a right.

That Valverde continues his charade obstinantly, while even claiming that a grave injustice has been done to his person, not only flies in the face of natural intelligence, but furthermore demonstrates that in his country it is still possible, and indeed expedient, for him to do so.

And in light of what a confession could have done for breaking the omerta' surrounding an international multi-sport doping ring scandal in Spain, Valverde's line is simply deplorable and offensive. More offensive, at this point, than any of the other cases mentioned. It is also in no way ingratiating of the Spanish sport establishment, where a total lack of a certain ethical standard seems to prevail. This would, therefore, be the expediency factor that absolutely needs to change if the country wants to gain international credibility. It isn't that doping would go away, or that it doesn't exist in other states of course. But at least a different and necessary, from the perspective of responsibility, message would be sent.
 
Oh, this is true. Valverde's results would have come under more scrutiny, but that's not to say that he couldn't beat the tests nonetheless. My defence of Valverde is not predicated on him being innocent, because I don't believe he is. My defence of Valverde is predicated on a perceived mistreatment of him by fans in turning him into the #1 hate figure, when the only reason for this that I can see is that he wasn't stupid enough to fail a test and his legal team were good enough to keep him on the road while he went through the same bull**** excuse-hunting that many others before and after him did too.

The other problem has come from dealing with posters for whom everything is totally black and white, i.e. if you're convicted or a known doper, you doped for every single race you ever entered, at least until your ban, and if you aren't, then you've been clean for every race you've ever entered. Would Valverde have necessarily doped to come 65th in the 2007 GP Plouay, or 80th in the 2005 Volta a Catalunya? Is there any reason to suspect these performances, other than they're by Valverde? Was he on the hotsauce for every single stage of every single race, as this viewpoint necessitates? More realistically, he was on the hotsauce a few times a year for the really important stuff like the Ardennes and the GTs.

That's why Cunego keeps being brought up - he's a human counterexample to this argument, as he's somebody who is generally perceived to have been 'dirty' at one point in his career, but 'clean' at another - something completely impossible if you take the black-and-white view of doping.
 
rhubroma said:
That Valverde continues his charade obstinantly, while even claiming that a grave injustice has been done to his person, not only flies in the face of natural intelligence, but furthermore demonstrates that in his country it is still possible, and indeed expedient, for him to do so.

The thing is, Valverde will look at other ex-Puerto people like Ángel Vicioso, Rubén Plaza and David Blanco still riding, and he probably genuinely does feel a grave injustice has been done to him because those people are free to ride.

He just isn't looking in the opposite direction, at what's happened to people like Rasmussen, Heras, Landis, and even his old teammate Paco Mancebo, in comparison to whom he should probably feel very lucky indeed.

I bet those ex-Puerto people still riding who've been in exile in Continental teams in the US or Portugal, like Vicioso, Plaza, Blanco, Bernabéu, Zaballa etc, haven't earned as much in the last four years as Valverde earned in one of the last four years, though.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
The thing is, Valverde will look at other ex-Puerto people like Ángel Vicioso, Rubén Plaza and David Blanco still riding, and he probably genuinely does feel a grave injustice has been done to him because those people are free to ride.

He just isn't looking in the opposite direction, at what's happened to people like Rasmussen, Heras, Landis, and even his old teammate Paco Mancebo, in comparison to whom he should probably feel very lucky indeed.

I bet those ex-Puerto people still riding who've been in exile in Continental teams in the US or Portugal, like Vicioso, Plaza, Blanco, Bernabéu, Zaballa etc, haven't earned as much in the last four years as Valverde earned in one of the last four years, though.


Well nobody with any sense for exposing the truth is feeling sorry for the guy.
And I really couldn't care less for his paying the price also for the crimes of others. Besides he isn't the first and he won't be the last to do so.

The system has its many faults. Perhaps it may even be no more than a farce and sham. Personally I think it is within the ranks of the UCI at least. But these riders know the risks, are apparently willing to take them on (otherwise the dopers would find another profession), and thus if one gets caught it was just part of the odds game in which everyone has participated and in which everyone is to be held accountable for their actions. I think the demonstration of ones character is shown precisely by how one faces the music and here the Spaniard falls miserably short of even a modicum of decency.

Not everybody will get caught, but saying that simply because only some do that there is "injustice" taking place is, and forgive my saying it baldly, a colossal idiocy not worthy of further remark other than it takes us all for dumba$$es.

You see, the thing is, if there are many today who look upon him with disgust (hate is too strong of a word, I think), then it is entirely the Spaniard's own doing.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
... My defence of Valverde is predicated on a perceived mistreatment of him by fans in turning him into the #1 hate(d) figure, ...

Sorry, but there is a long line ahead of him.

It would be wishfull thinking on the part of a Valv.Piti fan to believe that he was anywhere close to #1 on the list.

Dave.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
My defence of Valverde is predicated on a perceived mistreatment of him by fans in turning him into the #1 hate figure

I don't know how Valv/Pitti made it to #1 on the hate list. This thread has barely 100 posts and will likely fizzle out soon. Lancey-poo changes the tires on his jet and he is good for 1,000+ posts dripping with venom. I would bet Lance was also tested a lot more so Valv/Pitti isn't even #1 in that category.

edit: OMG, I'm starting to post like D Queued, I better get some help!
 
frenchfry said:
I don't know how Valv/Pitti made it to #1 on the hate list. This thread has barely 100 posts and will likely fizzle out soon. Lancey-poo changes the tires on his jet and he is good for 1,000+ posts dripping with venom. I would bet Lance was also tested a lot more so Valv/Pitti isn't even #1 in that category.

edit: OMG, I'm starting to post like D Queued, I better get some help!

:)

We can all take a page out of Glenn's book and mess people up with random posts that sound like we actually support doping.

New Year's Resolution: Every 1,000 or so posts I will support a random doper.

Dave.
 
frenchfry said:
I don't know how Valv/Pitti made it to #1 on the hate list. This thread has barely 100 posts and will likely fizzle out soon. Lancey-poo changes the tires on his jet and he is good for 1,000+ posts dripping with venom. I would bet Lance was also tested a lot more so Valv/Pitti isn't even #1 in that category.

edit: OMG, I'm starting to post like D Queued, I better get some help!

I would bet that is not the case. Who do you think wins more races over the course of the year? More wins = more tests.
You will have to up your game if you want to compare yourself to Dave.;)
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
I never got into the whole Puerto thing, but I have a question about Valverde in 2010. At the time he lost the CAS decision, he had raced his way to number one in the UCI rankings. I saw some of his stage races. So, was he racing clean at the time? Since the UCI wanted him gone, wouldn't they have tested the heck out of him? Is he talented enough to get those results honestly? Could a guy fighting for his career in court tempt Fate by cheat while waiting for a result?

Basically, if I never watched Valverde prior to 2010, and I enjoyed watching him race, was what I saw real? Or is the UCI testing really so ineffective that a rider in their cross hairs could cheat his way to the top of the rankings?