Valv.piti not going to Tour
Confirmed by his team.
In other news, CONI managed to get him through an administrativeerror.
Puerto keeps on giving.
In other news, CONI managed to get him through an administrativeerror.
Puerto keeps on giving.
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
0
Comments
-
What a Piti.
Sorry. Someone had to do it. I'd rather get it out of the way now. :roll:0 -
This was always going to be on the cards. The UCI should come to a decision soon on whether extend the Italian ban to cover all UCI races.
What gets me is the way the team and sponsor seem resolutely behind Valverde. Impressive loyalty I suppose but if Valverde is a cheat then they seem reluctant to root out a rider who has gone to great lengths to cheat. I get the feeling that if it was someone else on the team, say Pablo Lastras or Mathieu Drujon, then the rider would have been unloaded months ago.0 -
Unless he has some sort of hold on them. I wonder how many riders have their teams over a barrel... "hang me out to dry and I will tell all I know to bring you down with me"
Possible.0 -
I agree with Kleber and JimmyC -- I'm amazed that Caisse has been so solidly behind him.
He is probably a very nice guy -- some cheaters are and some are not. He practically stopped to give the win to Szmyd.
Over the years, he won a lot of races for that sponsor.0 -
Horray, a good piece of cycling news. 8)0
-
I just think that this is a bit of a pointless case really. Whether he doped in the past or not (and now it's clear he did), he doesn't now, so what's the problem? He was scared into not doping anymore, and that's the really important thing. It seems to me that were it not for those 50 km or so in Italy there'd be no problem for the ASO in letting him ride.0
-
TakeTheHighRoad wrote:I just think that this is a bit of a pointless case really. Whether he doped in the past or not (and now it's clear he did), he doesn't now, so what's the problem? He was scared into not doping anymore, and that's the really important thing. It seems to me that were it not for those 50 km or so in Italy there'd be no problem for the ASO in letting him ride.
To a lesser degree - isn't that like saying "I killed someone in the past, but I'm not killing anyone now so I should be allowed to go on with my daily life with no consequences. If not for that pesky DNA evidence that I left on the body - no one would have known!"
ASO let him ride in the past because there was no proven evidence against him. Now there is - and they are acting on it. A bit of "innocent until proven guilty" in this case.
What you're advocating is letting him off scot-free for his past transgressions, "just because he isn't doing it right now."
Ah...if only life were that simple.0 -
The point is though.
Killing someone isn't the same as doping.
They are in two incomparable worlds. Heaven forbid someone should be innocent until prven guilty, I know that's not the way with cycling. "oh, so and so's won, must be doped"0 -
TakeTheHighRoad wrote:The point is though.
Killing someone isn't the same as doping.
They are in two incomparable worlds. Heaven forbid someone should be innocent until prven guilty, I know that's not the way with cycling. "oh, so and so's won, must be doped"
No - the point is valid. An offence is an offence - whether it's speeding of murder. Just because you got away with for a while before evidence proved you were guilt, doesn't mean you should go unpunished. (Statues of limitations notwithstanding).
And doping....will murder the sport.
0 -
How do you know he's not doping now? Maybe he isn't and I'm being harsh but I have no reason to think he isn't.0
-
Pokerface wrote:No - the point is valid. An offence is an offence - whether it's speeding of murder. Just because you got away with for a while before evidence proved you were guilt, doesn't mean you should go unpunished. (Statues of limitations notwithstanding).
And doping....will murder the sport.
I suppose, but I just think he's a completely reformed character, who is so different to even the guy who stayed with Armstrong on Courchevel, and that is to be applauded.
I also think it's a major overreaction by CONI.0 -
Major over reaction by CONI?
So a rider provides a sample in Italy, which gets matched by DNA to a blood bank for dopers (and I would be realtively certain that a non-doper wouldn't have his blood there), and so they ban him from riding in Italy.
Sounds a bit like common sense to me.0 -
But when does he ever race in Italy? Apart from the Worlds and when a Tour may pass through I can't think of a single race in Italy he's ridden in. Why are the UCI taking so long before banning him from the rest of the world, if it's not much ado about nothing?0
-
TakeTheHighRoad wrote:Why are the UCI taking so long before banning him from the rest of the world, if it's not much ado about nothing?
It's a little thing called due process. They need to examine the proof first and make sure it's legally air-tight before they go ahead and pull the trigger.
And let's face it - the UCI doesn't really rush anything - do they?0 -
The shame is, unlike a few names from the past, Valverde seems stronger cleaner (if indeed he was piti - which seems pretty obvious.) Looks like a case of take your medicine, son.0
-
The Tour of Lombardy. I've seen him start that a couple of times at least. He rode the Worlds last year too if I recall correctly.TakeTheHighRoad wrote:But when does he ever race in Italy? Apart from the Worlds and when a Tour may pass through I can't think of a single race in Italy he's ridden in. Why are the UCI taking so long before banning him from the rest of the world, if it's not much ado about nothing?0 -
iainf72 wrote:In other news, CONI managed to get him through an administrativeerror.
I've seen this before, but it wasn't presented as an error.
On my understanding the judge has the discretion to release the evidence if he sees fit. And so does his deputy when he fills in for him and exercises his powers when he is away etc.
Here, the main judge has consistently kept everything locked away, and his holiday stand in simply undermined him by making the opposite decision.
(Valverde's due process argument depends on my being wrong to even get off the ground. And even if I am wrong, it's worth noting that the due process argument boils down to an argument about what Spanish law says about the extent to which deputies can exercise the powers of the main judge when he goes on holiday.)0 -
And God forbid if someone is presumed to be clean! This is total BS, who is anyone to say whether someone is clean or not? I could come out tomorrow and say, for example, Thor Hushovd is doped and there would be people noddding sagely. It's effin stupid.0
-
You better take the high road then.0
-
I'm presuming this leaves Valverde free to ride the Tour if Spain in September?
There are 3-4 stages close to where he lives.
I have always thought he/his lawyers have handled Op. Puerto badly.
Fuentes was the team doctor at Kelme so it seems logical that he would have had some blood taken (for emergency use of course!) by the Doctor. Valverde would have no control over what Fuentes may have added to this stored blood (which now contains epo). If he had 'come clean' about all this in 2006 maybe he would have only got 1 year ban ?0 -
No, it would have been a two year ban as this is serious stuff.
Look at it from the rider's point of view: you are earning millions a year and winning some of the biggest races. Why stop, surely it is worth, say, €250,000 in lawyers' fees to keep the gravy train on the rails? If you gain an extra year until the ban comes, you've landed another million or two.
Look at it from the team's point of view: sponsors are nervous about doping, to admit your star rider is a cheat could threaten the whole team. Remember the team is the ex-Banesto team and the management know all about doping, court room testimony from Alex Zuelle and Thomas Davy has explained the doping programmes run within the team. That's a can of worms the likes of Eusebio Unzue want to keep shut.
There's a concerted effort in Spain to defend the rider, to put a lid on the entire operations of Fuentes. With support like this, it's no wonder he's been fighting to duck a ban.0 -
I thought the blood comes from when Valverde rode for KELME?
Their Team 'doctor' was Fuentes.
Valverde is going to ride the Spanish National Championship this weekend and is the official World Number 1 - What a mess..............0 -
TakeTheHighRoad wrote:And God forbid if someone is presumed to be clean! This is total BS, who is anyone to say whether someone is clean or not? I could come out tomorrow and say, for example, Thor Hushovd is doped and there would be people noddding sagely. It's effin stupid.
I'm sorry, but anyone who presumes a rider to be clean whilst they are facing a worldiwde ban is very, very naive, and anyone who ever tests positive (or is caught doping, transfusing etc.), even if the b sample is screwed up etc. and they are never banned, should be expected to be treated with suspicion forever.
Why you would think that Valverde has gone clean because he has been found out? Lol0 -
The DNA links Valverde to the blood bag (that contains EPO, let's not forget). The number on that blood bag links to the name Valv.Piti (what a code! who would've guessed?!?!). The name Valv.Piti leads to a plan in Fuentes' documents. The exact same template of plan that others have admitted was a doping plan. How much more guilty do you want them? With the DNA evidence, there has rarely (never?) been such a solid doping case in cycling.
Oh... and for that thing about the blood coming from the Kelme days... the bags in Fuentes' fridge were dated. Fail.
Still believing in Lance Armstrong, I can understand. Still believing in Valverde is beyond any comprehension for me.0
