Valverde - my suspension is a great injustice

[frenchfry]

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.

I was joking about who is the most tested (I bet DQ picked that up though) - I guess I am just too subtle for my own good. To be honest I couldn't care less about who is tested the most, the only statistic that counts is who has the biggest jet!

 

[Hugh Januss]

I was joking about who is the most tested (I bet DQ picked that up though) - I guess I am just too subtle for my own good. To be honest I couldn't care less about who is tested the most, the only statistic that counts is who has the biggest jet!

Sorry, guess I just get used to some people here saying that with a straight face. You got me.
Time will tell whether LA still has a jet of any size at all.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was joking about who is the most tested (I bet DQ picked that up though) - I guess I am just too subtle for my own good. To be honest I couldn't care less about who is tested the most, the only statistic that counts is who has the biggest jet!

Sounds like you got the HughJanuss! That DQ guy can be a bit persistent! LMAO

Happy New Year French Fry.

That Wonderlance guy is crazy!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sorry, guess I just get used to some people here saying that with a straight face. You got me.
Time will tell whether LA still has a jet of any size at all.

It aints no G6 baby.

 

[D-Queued]

I was joking about who is the most tested (I bet DQ picked that up though) - I guess I am just too subtle for my own good. To be honest I couldn't care less about who is tested the most, the only statistic that counts is who has the biggest jet!

I got it. And, like Glenn, have started my New Year's laughter rolling!

Best to you all, and be safe.

Dave.

 

[nobilis]

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?

The question was never about Valverde being currently doped. The whole affair concerned his involvement with OP. Valverde was never tested positive and in 2010, he was riding and winning clean, or at least as clean as all the other competitors if we assume that everybody dopes.

 

[Dallas_]

The question was never about Valverde being currently doped. The whole affair concerned his involvement with OP. Valverde was never tested positive and in 2010, he was riding and winning clean, or at least as clean as all the other competitors if we assume that everybody dopes.

Actually Nobilus, I take exception(in a friendly manner) to your "if we assume that everybody dopes". Certainly there are a number of riders still doping and probably will be into the future. Suddenly I am getting visions of a phantom piece of meat. I believe the combination of the bio passport and normal testing for substances is having a positive affect on the peloton. Now the percentage of riders still doping is debatable and could be the subject of another thread!
As a side note, the mother of a rider in the peloton told me the following: Her son has a saying "sleep with dogs and you get fleas". No offense to the canine community.

Now Alejandro: Another poster pointed to his belief that Piti's results have actually improved since OP. If correct, then I would be suspicious of possible blood doping IE blood volumes boosted! From what I believe, blood doping your own blood can be detected at present. But regarding a sanction, WADA protocols for that are not yet in place. If wrong, please correct me. ...Can the bio pass by itself detect blood doping?
If correct on previous points -> Since OP, is it plausible that Piti has continued to blood dope? ...just asking?
cheers

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Is it plausible that he's continued to blood dope? Definitely.

Valverde could be, and indeed was, tested a lot in the period from 2006 on. He won a lot of races and held lots of jerseys, plus he was targeted for OOC and random testing because of his reputation. It would have been harder for Valverde than almost anybody else, save other highly successful targeted riders like di Luca, to cheat and continue to compile wins and results without being caught. And he turned back clean every time - but we've seen from others how the system can be cheated, so this doesn't mean he was necessarily clean. Kohl's bio-passport numbers were reportedly spotless when he signed for Lotto, cos he'd been able to keep everything consistent and within the allotted parameters. The biopass can only detect blood doping if the rider is not consistent enough to fall within acceptable parameters, and because of the number of factors consistent with pro cycling that can affect it (such as altitude and dehydration) the 'off score' is set higher than in other sports that test similarly, like XC skiing and biathlon, which enables numbers like Lance's 2009 Tour scores, which suspiciously dropped off then spiked back up and dropped back off then spiked back up, to be within the parameters and thus 'not suspicious', or Levi's test off score of 132.8, which is an almost unbelievable result because the probability of a false positive on that is so ludicrously slim. Maybe they have enough data now on the biopassport to pick up on these irregularities, and mean that the discrepancies a rider can show from their baseline are smaller, but even so it would have been possible to date to blood dope to at least some level and still pass the biopass.

There is nothing suspicious about Valverde's 2010 results. This is confirmed and rules by CAS. But it doesn't mean he was clean. There are riders out there I think are cleaner than him (Fedrigo, Moncoutié, Casar, etc). But there are plenty I believe are just as bad and worse than him who are riding without anything against their name, and I don't think that 2010 Valverde has done anything worse than anybody else achieving at his kind of level - but just because there are others who are worse doesn't make Valverde acceptable.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Actually Nobilus, I take exception(in a friendly manner) to your "if we assume that everybody dopes". Certainly there are a number of riders still doping and probably will be into the future. Suddenly I am getting visions of a phantom piece of meat. I believe the combination of the bio passport and normal testing for substances is having a positive affect on the peloton. Now the percentage of riders still doping is debatable and could be the subject of another thread!
As a side note, the mother of a rider in the peloton told me the following: Her son has a saying "sleep with dogs and you get fleas". No offense to the canine community.

Now Alejandro: Another poster pointed to his belief that Piti's results have actually improved since OP. If correct, then I would be suspicious of possible blood doping IE blood volumes boosted! From what I believe, blood doping your own blood can be detected at present. But regarding a sanction, WADA protocols for that are not yet in place. If wrong, please correct me. ...Can the bio pass by itself detect blood doping?
If correct on previous points -> Since OP, is it plausible that Piti has continued to blood dope? ...just asking?
cheers

We can absolutely still assume that everyone is doping. Maybe not to nearly the same degree that they were a few years ago, but by a strict application of the rules I bet there are very few (if any) "clean" riders in the Pro Tour.
The BP does not (as far as I understand it) detect anything. It gives indications, depending on how the experts interprete the parameters, and that is it's strength (for the UCI) and great failing(for true clean sport). And why it is open to legal interpetation.

 

[Ferminal]

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?

I don't think Valverde seriously believed he could escape a global ban. The proceedings through the courts were the best way to delay the inevitable. He managed to rack up some great wins (and hold on to them) whilst he was under the cloud... Dropping his 2010 results is little sacrifice compared to winning the Vuelta, Dauphine, Catalunya, Liege etc

Whether he was doping or not 2007-2010 is up to personal interpretation, most people in this thread have revealed which side they sit on. As the couple of posts above go, it's not a question of whether or not Piti was doping but whether or not the top tier of cyclists were any less doped than they were earlier in the decade.

I don't hate Valverde for what he did, I'm just not a huge fan of him in general, and no I don't think he should have avoided a ban just because he was singled out. He's unlucky but so are people who can't afford such an extensive program and end up testing positive.

 

[nobilis]

Actually Nobilus, I take exception(in a friendly manner) to your "if we assume that everybody dopes". Certainly there are a number of riders still doping and probably will be into the future. Suddenly I am getting visions of a phantom piece of meat. I believe the combination of the bio passport and normal testing for substances is having a positive affect on the peloton. Now the percentage of riders still doping is debatable and could be the subject of another thread!
As a side note, the mother of a rider in the peloton told me the following: Her son has a saying "sleep with dogs and you get fleas". No offense to the canine community.

Now Alejandro: Another poster pointed to his belief that Piti's results have actually improved since OP. If correct, then I would be suspicious of possible blood doping IE blood volumes boosted! From what I believe, blood doping your own blood can be detected at present. But regarding a sanction, WADA protocols for that are not yet in place. If wrong, please correct me. ...Can the bio pass by itself detect blood doping?
If correct on previous points -> Since OP, is it plausible that Piti has continued to blood dope? ...just asking?
cheers

Dallas_, first of all, i'd like to say (also in a friendly manner) that you cannot engage objectively in a discussion about Valverde while using the name "valv.piti".
Concerning the BP, i'm not an expert in this matter, but I what I know is that it's a longitudinal follow-up of blood values of cyclists to detect the abnormal fluctuations, however it does not tell you of the cause of these fluctuations, even when combined with other data related to the rider (substance control, other medications, illnesses) and i think there lie the weaknesses of this system and adds more controversies and uncertainties to the situation.

As for the other points, Libertine Seguros has answered them.
Valverde being consistently on the podium from 2006 to 2010, and his suspected links with OP, was one of the most closely watched and monitored cyclist so I think that P(being doped after 2006) <= P(Being doped before 2006)

As for everyone being doped, I was really assuming that and don't have any concrete evidence for it but we all know that there are many ways to be doped and get away with it, even with the BP, extensive testing, etc

 

[Ferminal]

Dallas_, first of all, i'd like to say (also in a friendly manner) that you cannot engage objectively in a discussion about Valverde while using the name "valv.piti".
Concerning the BP, i'm not an expert in this matter, but I what I know is that it's a longitudinal follow-up of blood values of cyclists to detect the abnormal fluctuations, however it does not tell you of the cause of these fluctuations, even when combined with other data related to the rider (substance control, other medications, illnesses) and i think there lie the weaknesses of this system and adds more controversies and uncertainties to the situation.

As for the other points, Libertine Seguros has answered them.
Valverde being consistently on the podium from 2006 to 2010, and his suspected links with OP, was one of the most closely watched and monitored cyclist so I think that P(being doped after 2006) <= P(Being doped before 2006)

As for everyone being doped, I was really assuming that and don't have any concrete evidence for it but we all know that there are many ways to be doped and get away with it, even with the BP, extensive testing, etc

Do you have any info to suggest that he was tested abnormally more (i.e. not just because he was winning more) after 2006?

I mean that might sound like the rational thing to do (target him more) but we know the UCI is far from rational.

I'm no seasoned doper, but I'd guess that the biggest threat to a top program would be constant OoC testing.

 

[hrotha]

I think it's safe to say Caisse as a whole does not take many risks with doping. They've had very, very few positive cases throughout their long history. It's quite possible their riders dope less than the average pro as a general rule, maybe stepping up to full programs under specific circumstances (say, a Pereiro suddenly finding himself leading the Tour). Valverde is most likely one of the most naturally talented riders out there, so depending on how "clean" the sport has "become", it's perfectly possible that Valverde would still be winning either clean or cleaner than many of his rivals.

Closer scrutiny means a higher risk of getting caught, sure, but from what we know it would seem you can still dope as long as you don't overdo it and keep it within safe margins - i.e. as long as you dope relatively little. I think that's probably where Valverde was.

Note that "relatively little" may still imply he got a very significant boost compared to clean riders.

 

[nobilis]

I think it's safe to say Caisse as a whole does not take many risks with doping. They've had very, very few positive cases throughout their long history. It's quite possible their riders dope less than the average pro as a general rule, maybe stepping up to full programs under specific circumstances (say, a Pereiro suddenly finding himself leading the Tour). Valverde is most likely one of the most naturally talented riders out there, so depending on how "clean" the sport has "become", it's perfectly possible that Valverde would still be winning either clean or cleaner than many of his rivals.

It's true, Caisse / Banesto had very few doping cases in the past. Plus, during OP, only Mancebo from the team (although he was with Ag2R in 2006 during the scandal) was named in the affair. Most of the others were from Liberty Seguros or Communidad Valenciana. I still believe that Valverde was in the wrong team at the wrong moment when he was with Kelme / Communidad Valenciana and where Dr. Fuentes was in charge there.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Valverde was with Caisse-Illes Balears in '06, though 'bag #18' dates from his time at Kelme.

 

[nobilis]

Valverde was with Caisse-Illes Balears in '06, though 'bag #18' dates from his time at Kelme.

Yeah i know this is what I meant. The bags date back to 2004 and before this is why I only mentioned Mancebo. Tino Zaballa too was with Caisse in 2006 but he was previously with Kelme and Saunier Duval. So Mancebo was an individual case within Unzue's team, a bit like Basso's and Ullrich's cases, therefore no organized doping whatsoever within the team.

 

[D-Queued]

It's true, Caisse / Banesto had very few doping cases in the past. ...

But a rather notorious one with probenecid?

Edit to add: a masking agent for steroids during the same Tour that an ex-teammate tested positive for testosterone.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's true, Caisse / Banesto had very few doping cases in the past. Plus, during OP, only Mancebo from the team (although he was with Ag2R in 2006 during the scandal) was named in the affair. Most of the others were from Liberty Seguros or Communidad Valenciana. I still believe that Valverde was in the wrong team at the wrong moment when he was with Kelme / Communidad Valenciana and where Dr. Fuentes was in charge there.

Talking about days on Banesto former rider Thomas Davey said:

"A system of medically assisted doping existed."

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But a rather notorious one with probenecid?

Edit to add: a masking agent for steroids during the same Tour that an ex-teammate tested positive for testosterone.

Dave.

hrotha's post with the original hypothesis of Abarca Sports being relatively low-key on the doping front did include the notable caveat that in some circumstances they would step up to a full program, with Pereiro finding himself in the lead of the Tour being the mentioned circumstance.

 

[The Hitch]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/11/3110127.htm?site=sport&section=more

Not thread worthy and no major change, but a Valverde appeal was denied.

So no Valverde for 12 months. Some riders need to take advantage of this.

A piti imo, but, what you gonna do.

 

[delbified]

A piti imo, but, what you gonna do.

there's only one type of piti most people would allow him, and i hope it bites him on the a$$

 

[Berzin]

Talking about days on Banesto former rider Thomas Davey said:

From what I understand Davey later recanted the accusations he made about Indurain and the Banesto team because he was going to get sued. There's no mention of this small little detail in the article you quote.

Also interesting is the silence of Andy Hampsten on this issue. He was brought in to Banesto as a key lieutenant for Indurain in the mountains one year and didn't make the Tour squad.

Hampsten was always very vague about his time with Banesto and never gave a full explanation as to why he wasn't chosen for their Tour team, which was the only reason he was signed in the first place.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

From what I understand Davey later recanted the accusations he made about Indurain and the Banesto team because he was going to get sued. There's no mention of this small little detail in the article you quote.

Also interesting is the silence of Andy Hampsten on this issue. He was brought in to Banesto as a key lieutenant for Indurain in the mountains one year and didn't make the Tour squad.

Hampsten was always very vague about his time with Banesto and never gave a full explanation as to why he wasn't chosen for their Tour team, which was the only reason he was signed in the first place.

Wow - you're right -there is no mention of "this small little detail" in the article that I quoted.
I would check your quoted link.... but you didn't provide one.

Davey's comments were made during sworn testimony at the Festina trial.

 

[Berzin]

Davey's comments were made during sworn testimony at the Festina trial.

Which he recanted at a later date to avoid getting sued, like I said. I don't have a link to it but I vividly recall this happening. I believe I read it in cycling Weekly a long time ago or some other magazine. And it wasn't a big story, either-it took up a small paragraph on the side of the page when it was announced.

You've been rather testy lately-everything OK or is it that I'm annoying you?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Which he recanted at a later date to avoid getting sued, like I said. I don't have a link to it but I vividly recall this happening. I believe I read it in cycling Weekly a long time ago or some other magazine. And it wasn't a big story, either-it took up a small paragraph on the side of the page when it was announced.

You've been rather testy lately-everything OK or is it that I'm annoying you?

Testy - ya, thats a good word. I get testy when you suggest I have ommitted something on purpose - something that you can't produce.

Daveys comments were given widespread coverage at the time - if Banesto's mission was to show that they were not doping I would expect as much publicity of Daveys retraction.