• 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!

What if Valverde wins the Vuelta?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
DonTickles said:
Who are these clean contenders you talk about? I don't know of any such people... What's the point of viewing the #2 as the winner if Valverde wins? It's way more likely that #2 is on the same medical program as #1 than it is that #2 is squeaky clean.

Well, according to Patsy everyone is clean? ;)
 
this Issue is so irrelevant by now that Valverde can get away from it by the statue of limitation argument....
CONI did take the approach that UCI should have adopted since OP blew over.. but 50 cyclists implicated are almost half the peloton, and like any dirty business, a few needed to be blamed to save as many as possible...
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Visit site
usedtobefast said:
maybe Diego Montoya?

I read that as Diego Maradona
laugh.gif
 
May 15, 2009
236
0
0
Visit site
Danilot said:
The question can now also be reformulated as "What if Valverde wins the Worlds?". He's been selected by the Spanish team.

The course is so close to the Italian border too... they should modify it so it just sneaks into Italy.
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Visit site
RhodriM said:
The course is so close to the Italian border too... they should modify it so it just sneaks into Italy.

I think it gets within a stone's throw of the Italian border. Pushing their luck somewhat.
 
All this discussion of Valverde's connection to OP has been discussed ad nauseum in previous threads.

It is worth remembering that there is NO evidence tying Valverde to doping. There is illegally obtained DNA evidence linking him to blood ceased in OP, which makes him guilty of donating blood and nothing else.. so far.

It is interesting to see how many are willing to accept breaking the law in order to convict someone else of breaking the law. Who is more guilty?

If you cannot convict within the boundaries of jurisprudence, he is guilty of nothing.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
All this discussion of Valverde's connection to OP has been discussed ad nauseum in previous threads.

It is worth remembering that there is NO evidence tying Valverde to doping. There is illegally obtained DNA evidence linking him to blood ceased in OP, which makes him guilty of donating blood and nothing else.. so far.

It is interesting to see how many are willing to accept breaking the law in order to convict someone else of breaking the law. Who is more guilty?

If you cannot convict within the boundaries of jurisprudence, he is guilty of nothing.
illegally obtained my ****.

There was an illegal clinic. The Spanish gov't switched off the investigation into the doping case. "Crimes to public health"? No said the gov't. Well if they wished to pursue it, surely there is a public health issue. Bassons? Nolf? Manzano? Gianetti?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RhodriM said:
The course is so close to the Italian border too... they should modify it so it just sneaks into Italy.

or italy could invade.. :D
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
All this discussion of Valverde's connection to OP has been discussed ad nauseum in previous threads.

It is worth remembering that there is NO evidence tying Valverde to doping. There is illegally obtained DNA evidence linking him to blood ceased in OP, which makes him guilty of donating blood and nothing else.. so far.

It is interesting to see how many are willing to accept breaking the law in order to convict someone else of breaking the law. Who is more guilty?

If you cannot convict within the boundaries of jurisprudence, he is guilty of nothing.

I think we will have a better idea of if valverde will win the vuelta after tonight's tt. this may be a dumm question but why was valverde allowed to ride le tour in 06 if he was a 'puerto star'?
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
All this discussion of Valverde's connection to OP has been discussed ad nauseum in previous threads.

It is worth remembering that there is NO evidence tying Valverde to doping. There is illegally obtained DNA evidence linking him to blood ceased in OP, which makes him guilty of donating blood and nothing else.. so far.

It is interesting to see how many are willing to accept breaking the law in order to convict someone else of breaking the law. Who is more guilty?

If you cannot convict within the boundaries of jurisprudence, he is guilty of nothing.

There are a few different factual innacuracies in your post. But I'll just address this:

He's not "guilty of donating blood and nothing else". The blood bags from Puerto contain blood laced with different combinations of doping products. None of them contain just blood.

No one infuses just blood. The only place they do that is at the hospital ;)
 
May 15, 2009
236
0
0
Visit site
issoisso said:
There are a few different factual innacuracies in your post. But I'll just address this:

He's not "guilty of donating blood and nothing else". The blood bags from Puerto contain blood laced with different combinations of doping products. None of them contain just blood.

No one infuses just blood. The only place they do that is at the hospital ;)

As an aside...

Really? I was under the impression that sometimes they did infuse 'just' blood; albeit blood from an athlete that was fit and rested to replace blood of one that had been riding hundreds of kilometres a day for 3 weeks.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
All this discussion of Valverde's connection to OP has been discussed ad nauseum in previous threads.

It is worth remembering that there is NO evidence tying Valverde to doping. There is illegally obtained DNA evidence linking him to blood ceased in OP, which makes him guilty of donating blood and nothing else.. so far.

It is interesting to see how many are willing to accept breaking the law in order to convict someone else of breaking the law. Who is more guilty?

If you cannot convict within the boundaries of jurisprudence, he is guilty of nothing.

I agree with everything you say, except Valverde's blood bags also contained EPO (see http://www.europeloton.com/2009/02/recurring-operacion-puerto-nightmare.html).
 
issoisso said:
There are a few different factual innacuracies in your post. But I'll just address this:

He's not "guilty of donating blood and nothing else". The blood bags from Puerto contain blood laced with different combinations of doping products. None of them contain just blood.

No one infuses just blood. The only place they do that is at the hospital ;)

It doesn't matter in a legal context what they contain. They are not evidence in any legal proceeding at this point. The fact that you have public knowledge, illegally obtained connecting him through DNA to blood ceased in OP has no relevance to his legal standing, only your moral outrage.
 
May 15, 2009
236
0
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
It doesn't matter in a legal context what they contain. They are not evidence in any legal proceeding at this point. The fact that you have public knowledge, illegally obtained connecting him through DNA to blood ceased in OP has no relevance to his legal standing, only your moral outrage.

If there were bags of his EPO-laced blood involved in Puerto I'll stick with moral outrage. Even if(and I don't know if it's the case or not) the link between his DNA and that blood was obtained illegally it's not going to make me sit back, enjoy him winning the Vuelta and say it's OK because he should never have been found out if everyone had played by the rules.