• 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 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
RhodriM said:
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.

Your moral outrage is completely justified. The facts are compelling, but they are not evidence for very good reasons of legal procedure. My moral outrage is directed at those who would vilify the individual rider for their own political reasons (CONI) rather then spend their energy addressing the systemic problems of the sport.
 
Jul 17, 2009
162
0
0
Visit site
A couple of decades ago, a teenager was killed by a drug dealer, but there was no evidence. So the teenager's father got into the drug world and, pretending he was another dealer, he befriended the murderer.

He hid a small cassette recorder under his shirt and managed to get a confession from the murdered, quite a clear confession at that. He brought it to court, but the judge wouldn't accept it because "the evidence had not been obtained according to legal rules and specifications".

The murderer is still free today. Fair, isn't it?

Well, Alejandro Valverde's case is pretty much the same. He committed a crime, at the beginning there was little evidence, and someone used an off-the-wall procedure to obtain definite evidence and proved he was guilty. Yet he's not punished simply because some Spanish judge ruled that this evidence may not be used in court, even though it incriminates him clearly.
 
Jun 22, 2009
10,644
2
0
Visit site
Danilot said:
Alejandro Valverde has already been banned by the COI for several months, and his status in other countries remains in a legal limbo. Even though he's trying to point to legal details to save his A$$, it appears the DNA comparison has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he doped and, therefore, he must be banned for two years.

Nevertheless, he keeps on riding, invited by all Spanish race organisers, who are willing to drop their pants to have him in their races. He is one of the favourites to win the Vuelta.

A little off topic maybe, but Italy wouldn't do the same for italian riders? :rolleyes:

They attempted to give that scumbag ricco 1 year suspension.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
fruit bars with eyes said:
if the guy who finishes 2nd is the winner- then as far as i am concerned the guy who finished 3rd is the winner
can I add to this merry go round, let me add the Russian doll metaphor...
 
elapid said:
Sorry, but I think that is just silly talk. We know the details and we're just fans. Of course the professional peloton know the details. They work with Valverde and other riders implicated in Operation Puerto every racing day. They know better than we do about what is going on in the peloton and the details of Operation Puerto and Valverde's case. They lived it and are continuing to live with it and all its fallout. Professional cyclists are not dumb automatons, which you seem to be implying, but rather no different to you and I. Their silence is not because of a lack of intelligence or an unwillingness to get involved, its called Omerta.

I did not explain myself enough.

At first, posters here in The Clinic are not "just fans". They are intrested in this topic, they share and gather information. And even reading these threads, you can see that even these fans disagree a lot, their level of knowledge is different. I, for instance dont know the details. I have general knowledge what OP was, I believe that Valverde was(is?) doped, but what is exactly is legal situation ariund him, what is the position of Spanish or Italian authorities, I dont know and I dont care.
It is pretty dangerous to generalize the knowledge of fans based on information circling here in The Clinic.

Secondly. There is no such thing as "professional peloton". There are hundreds of people with different backgrounds. There are 15 year pros, there are tens of riders who entered peloton after OP. There those who have been directly involved in doping and those who have not. There is lot of different information in differnet heads, opinions, facts, rumours, speculations, first and second and third hand information.

And finally. The talks was about omerta and why cyclist dont stand up iagainst Valverde. Sure there is omerta, but if you look around, you can see big difference how people talk in internet and in front of the public. It is very easy to be opinionated, speculative, mix facts and fictions anonymously and much more difficult if you have to speak in front of public. I am not talking only about cycling and doping, but you can see the same thing everywhere. There is difference between public and non-public. Most people are much less willing to talk in front of cameras, they are much more reserved, much more careful with their wording.

And I agree if you say "Professional cyclists are not dumb automatons, which you seem to be implying, but rather no different to you and I." They are like you and me, they are different with different knowledge, intrests and opinions.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
Von Mises said:
At first, posters here in The Clinic are not "just fans". They are intrested in this topic, they share and gather information. And even reading these threads, you can see that even these fans disagree a lot, their level of knowledge is different. I, for instance dont know the details. I have general knowledge what OP was, I believe that Valverde was(is?) doped, but what is exactly is legal situation ariund him, what is the position of Spanish or Italian authorities, I dont know and I dont care.
It is pretty dangerous to generalize the knowledge of fans based on information circling here in The Clinic.

Cycling fans read cycling magazines and the news from internet sites like CN and VeloNews. This is where we get our information from regarding Operacion Puerto. If you don't know or care about the current situation regarding Valverde then you should not be posting in this thread. Alternatively, you could read the news in cycling magazines and web sites to educate yourself. This is not a dangerous thing to do, you may even find it enlightening and liberating.

Von Mises said:
Secondly. There is no such thing as "professional peloton". There are hundreds of people with different backgrounds. There are 15 year pros, there are tens of riders who entered peloton after OP. There those who have been directly involved in doping and those who have not. There is lot of different information in differnet heads, opinions, facts, rumours, speculations, first and second and third hand information.

There is such a thing as the professional peloton. It is a bunch of talented cyclists who get paid to race their bikes. While there is undoubtedly different levels of experience, that does not make them any less professional than the next guy that is paid to race his bike. Regardless of their level of experience, all professional cyclists would have been exposed to doping in one way or another at some time in their career, whether it is actually doping themselves, being offered doping products, being tempted to dope, or just hearing about doping. Doping has been an integral part of the sport for decades and every professional cyclist knows something about doping.

Von Mises said:
And finally. The talks was about omerta and why cyclist dont stand up iagainst Valverde. Sure there is omerta, but if you look around, you can see big difference how people talk in internet and in front of the public. It is very easy to be opinionated, speculative, mix facts and fictions anonymously and much more difficult if you have to speak in front of public. I am not talking only about cycling and doping, but you can see the same thing everywhere. There is difference between public and non-public. Most people are much less willing to talk in front of cameras, they are much more reserved, much more careful with their wording.

Again, you need to educate yourself here. Failure to speak out about doping is not because of a fear of public speaking. Riders like Armstrong actively enforce the Omerta by shouting down any rider who speaks out about doping or doping practices. Riders who do expose the system are ignored by the UCI and are unable to get contracts with professional teams, while riders that serve their time and remain quiet are back in the peloton once their ban has finished. Bottom line is that if a professional rider speaks out about doping within the peloton, his career is finished. That's Omerta.
 
Jul 22, 2009
754
1
0
Visit site
elapid said:
[...]The handling of OP resulted in an almighty mess for which my personal opinion is it should just be written off as a lesson learned on how not to manage a drug bust and move on.

Oh, I beg to differ. The handling of the Balco affair here in the USA was a lot, inmensely I would say, worse.
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
Visit site
Silly Thread

The reason cyclists don't protest Valverde is they have no objection to how he prepares for races. The leaders of the other teams don't use any different preparation.

The best explanation for why cyclists find nothing objectionable about Valverde is that Valverde is playing the game the way everybody else is.

In this omerta-led and trained peloton, it's ridiculous to pretend one's favorite rider is clean and your favorite's rival is a doper.
 
elapid said:
Cycling fans read cycling magazines and the news from internet sites like CN and VeloNews. This is where we get our information from regarding Operacion Puerto. If you don't know or care about the current situation regarding Valverde then you should not be posting in this thread. Alternatively, you could read the news in cycling magazines and web sites to educate yourself. This is not a dangerous thing to do, you may even find it enlightening and liberating.



There is such a thing as the professional peloton. It is a bunch of talented cyclists who get paid to race their bikes. While there is undoubtedly different levels of experience, that does not make them any less professional than the next guy that is paid to race his bike. Regardless of their level of experience, all professional cyclists would have been exposed to doping in one way or another at some time in their career, whether it is actually doping themselves, being offered doping products, being tempted to dope, or just hearing about doping. Doping has been an integral part of the sport for decades and every professional cyclist knows something about doping.



Again, you need to educate yourself here. Failure to speak out about doping is not because of a fear of public speaking. Riders like Armstrong actively enforce the Omerta by shouting down any rider who speaks out about doping or doping practices. Riders who do expose the system are ignored by the UCI and are unable to get contracts with professional teams, while riders that serve their time and remain quiet are back in the peloton once their ban has finished. Bottom line is that if a professional rider speaks out about doping within the peloton, his career is finished. That's Omerta.

For my taste you view is oversimplified and overgeneralised. I dont believe in "just fans" and "professional pelotons" as homgenous units. I may not be expert in doping or pro cycling, but seeing how many variables we can find or how complex incentives are in other fields, I cant assume that cycling is exception.

Anyway, I rest my case in this thread.
 
Danilot said:
So, if he does win the Vuelta, do you think there's going to be an uproar on the part of the foreign riders? For example, French riders? The second-placed rider, who could see a prestigious win stolen from him by a bloke who shouldn't be here in first place? What would you do if you were second in a race won by a cyclist who has been proved to dope and should be banned?

If you apply the same tactics and standards that have been used in the CONI case against Valverde to the current field racing in the Vuelta, then you would quickly come to the conclusion that most of them should be banned. If we're going to have an "inquisition" and break laws, the rules of evidence, and violate individuals rights in pursuit of the truth, we should apply the same standard to every rider.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
If you apply the same tactics and standards that have been used in the CONI case against Valverde to the current field racing in the Vuelta, then you would quickly come to the conclusion that most of them should be banned. If we're going to have an "inquisition" and break laws, the rules of evidence, and violate individuals rights in pursuit of the truth, we should apply the same standard to every rider.
I would agree.

I also want Landis to get an opportunity to get back. I do not see why Landis and Vinokourov should be scapegoated by the powers. (albeit they are a different case, as they did have a hearing and were found guilty) I hope Armstrong signs Floyd, even though I still then what Geoghagen and Landis did to Lemond was reprehensible. Landis was phenomenal in 2006, if you subtract the jour sans. I reckon he would be equal with Contador if they were competing on equal terms.

If Landis and Vino were doing nothing different, they should not be excoriated, one of the principles of natural justice is universality, and this is contravenes it writ large.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
If you apply the same tactics and standards that have been used in the CONI case against Valverde to the current field racing in the Vuelta, then you would quickly come to the conclusion that most of them should be banned. If we're going to have an "inquisition" and break laws, the rules of evidence, and violate individuals rights in pursuit of the truth, we should apply the same standard to every rider.
http://newcyclingpathways.blogspot.com/2009/03/15-reasons-why-valverde-should-be-able.html
 
elapid said:
...Failure to speak out about doping is not because of a fear of public speaking. Riders like Armstrong actively enforce the Omerta by shouting down any rider who speaks out about doping or doping practices. Riders who do expose the system are ignored by the UCI and are unable to get contracts with professional teams, while riders that serve their time and remain quiet are back in the peloton once their ban has finished. Bottom line is that if a professional rider speaks out about doping within the peloton, his career is finished. That's Omerta.

+1 ...

What's Jörg Jaksche up to?
 
Apr 1, 2009
1,488
0
0
Visit site
Mellow Velo said:
Having watched today's huge mountain stage, I was very disappointed to see Caisse do a remarkable fine impression of USPS, circa 2004.
4 riders left in a group of 10 or so. Any attacks futile, ridden down by tempo.
All on an 8% gradient.:(

My thoughts exactly.:(
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Visit site
Mellow Velo said:
Having watched today's huge mountain stage, I was very disappointed to see Caisse do a remarkable fine impression of USPS, circa 2004.
4 riders left in a group of 10 or so. Any attacks futile, ridden down by tempo.
All on an 8% gradient.:(

1 word: headwind. Attacking was useless before the very end unless you were someone who they wouldn't care about enough to chase
 
Yes, I see DT posted that there was a headwind. The benefits of Sporza, over Eurosport.
However, while it explains the very slow overall speed of the stage, the Caisse riders still had to plough away, all day, drop 150 riders, then chase down the first Mosquera/Gesink/Danielson half effort, Cunego's bigger dig etc.
Still managed to get 4 lads home above Haimar Zubeldia.
While I rate Vas Kiryienka, he worked like a donkey, is no mountain goat and finished inside 2 minutes of the winner.....

Lets just say, "iffy", IMO.