And the hits just keep on coming! 3 more riders positive
Comments
-
I think we all like riders who are capable of lighting up a race or winning in style. The likes of Basso, Valverde and Contador fit into this category. You could probably invent some algorithm to measure the rider, based on their ability, willingness to attack, pedalling style, climbing ability, character, position on the bike and clothing etc.
But there are some questions to be asked at times, so like Iain, sometimes the riders don't sit too well.
Then there are some riders who are covered in suspicion, for example I couldn't get excited watching Di Luca. He's been linked to so many doping scandals, watching him evolve into a GT specialist was literally incredible.
But there's no accounting for taste, we can all have different riders.0 -
Kléber wrote:
But there are some questions to be asked at times, so like Iain, sometimes the riders don't sit too well.
Then there are some riders who are covered in suspicion, for example I couldn't get excited watching Di Luca. He's been linked to so many doping scandals, watching him evolve into a GT specialist was literally incredible.
But there's no accounting for taste, we can all have different riders.
There's no accounting for applying different standards of proof for these riders, either.
All know Iain likes Contador, but he doesn't favour him in the ongoing doping debate.
It's one thing to admire a rider, who has a "past", another to try and argue his innocence, which, we all know, is unprovable.
I don't think anyone arguing that Contador, is/was a probable doper, is applying a different standard of proof to that of Armstrong. Just that the weight of evidence against the latter, is greater.
It is those that argue there is no evidence, that are guilty of using subjective favouritism to shift the goalposts.
Have we seen LA's name on a Dr Ferarri "medication" list?
Far better for fans of Contador simply to say they will believe it when it happens and stay out of this LA style, non pass.
As for Valverde, the standards of evidence available match, if not surpass that against Basso, so........."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
iainf72 wrote:The evidence for other is exactly the same as for Basso yet he served a ban, many other didn't. You can see why the Italians get a bit grumpy about it. Valverde's case and Basso's case are exactly the same.
I can like riders I think are dopers or I find suspicious. For example I like Contador. But he doesn't sit easy with me.
What he said ^0 -
Did Frank Shrek ever serve a ban for his involvement ('training plans')with Dr Fuentes?
Did Contador ever serve a ban for his name being on the file (medication was the 'same as Jorg Jascke')? I know teams he was in were stopped from riding, but not him personally.
There are numerous double standards over this issue, although the Spanish do seem to be leading the way.0 -
The document I linked to is "document 31" but Contador is named on others. For example on Document 3. There's also a folder for the entire 2005 Tour de France squad, document 92, with appropriate treatments on each stage, with growth hormone, IGF-1 insulin and testosterone programmed for each day.
It's all such a mess. Unless Fuentes was writing fiction then some riders have some real explaining to do. For example, document 23 is a special one on Allan Davis with dosages of growth hormone, EPO and IGF-1 insulin. Perhaps Alby thought he was on vitamins?
I know we all want entertainment but the programme that some of these guys were on was downright dangerous. It's not fair on riders to take these things for the sake of our TV entertainment. At times X-Factor looks less rigged.
Now we can maybe forget the whole Puerto matter as something bad that happened in the past and it's better today but we keep saying this, don't we?0 -
Interesting to see now that Valverde will NOT be staying with the rest of the Spanish team in their hotel in Italy: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/spanish ... t-of-italy0
-
RichN95 wrote:cswebbo wrote:Did Contador ever serve a ban for his name being on the file (medication was the 'same as Jorg Jascke')?.
It's actually "Nothing or like JJ" - the nothing (Nada) is quite important when assessing the evidence.
That is why he should get the benefit of the doubt, not an all clear.
After all, we are talking "medical programme", not just a one off treatment.
In anycase, it shows an intent to dope, which was all Basso was sanctioned for.
The problem of fully investigating OP, for the Spanish, probably had little to do with their top cyclists being involved, rather the elite phantoms of the football and tennis world.
As much as anything, Valverde caught a lucky break, as did the others, who simply invoked Omerta and didn't rush to retire.Pokerface wrote:Interesting to see now that Valverde will NOT be staying with the rest of the Spanish team in their hotel in Italy: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/spanish ... t-of-italy
This fact was brought up, fairly early in the Vuelta. Valverde's passport doesn't pass muster, there.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
iainf72 wrote:frenchfighter wrote:
Basso (who Iain seems to really like) is a proven doper beyond doubt - this I find odd. Why he is accepted back by fans and the media whereas someone who isn't proven guilty is villified I don't quite understand. Admitting doping doesn't lessen your offence, it is only reflects on your character.
If he's a proven doper beyond doubt, why was he only banned for attempted doping? I believe he doped, of course.
The evidence for other is exactly the same as for Basso yet he served a ban, many other didn't. You can see why the Italians get a bit grumpy about it. Valverde's case and Basso's case are exactly the same.
I can like riders I think are dopers or I find suspicious. For example I like Contador. But he doesn't sit easy with me.
I need to be more accurate, you are right. He admitted to planning to dope so had this info come out a year later or so then he would have been a doper (could still have been). His admission is what I mean when I say proven doper (badly worded I know).
That he admitted it when he didn't have to reflects well on his character, but for me I cannot like him as he planned to cheat (there are other factors too like riding style and style in general). For me admission does not absolve the act.Contador is the Greatest0 -
If you don't like someone for "attempting" to dope, why do you like Valverde (DNA match with a blood pouch, the blood in the pouch also contained r-EPO = much more than an attempt) or Contador (many Puerto documents from Fuentes on him = someone attempting a doping programme for him)?0
-
Blazing Saddles wrote:
That is why he should get the benefit of the doubt, not an all clear.
After all, we are talking "medical programme", not just a one off treatment.
In anycase, it shows an intent to dope, which was all Basso was sanctioned for.
I'm certainly not giving him the all clear, but I also don't think it shows an intent to dope. It only shows that Fuentes discussed him with someone (Saiz probably). Contador may have been completely oblivious to it.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:I don't think anyone arguing that Contador, is/was a probable doper, is applying a different standard of proof to that of Armstrong.
Yes they are. List all the 'proof' against Contador and list all the proof against Lance. It will be very revealing.Contador is the Greatest0 -
RichN95 wrote:I'm certainly not giving him the all clear, but I also don't think it shows an intent to dope. It only shows that Fuentes discussed him with someone (Saiz probably). Contador may have been completely oblivious to it.
Contador was indeed unaware of it according to him and Fuentes. Also, the taped discussions were only to do with his results.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Kléber wrote:Contador (many Puerto documents from Fuentes on him = someone attempting a doping programme for him)?
No. How many times does it need to be said that this is no where near the type of evidence against the likes of Lance and that in the document, there is nothing to implicate him.
I like Valverde the rider, I don't particularly like him off the bike.
I like Contador the rider, I like Contador off the bike.
If you read my previous post I said there are other factors. Taking the case of Basso, if Valverde had admitted then I would like him a lot less. I would still like him as I think he is a superb rider but that is it. Basso 2009 = boredom for the most part so I can't even like him for his riding.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Basso can however (rarely) produce a great shot. This is from Vuelta prologue and edited quite a bit.
Contador is the Greatest0 -
Thanks for explaining. I was just curious to see where you draw the line. I think it's all a bit of thin ice.frenchfighter wrote:No. How many times does it need to be said that this is no where near the type of evidence against the likes of Lance and that in the document, there is nothing to implicate him.
Some of the Puerto documents do link him but only indirectly. It's hard to imagine the whole LS team doping without him knowing, that he was spared the programme. Still, riders can be caught wiring money to Fuentes but they are innocent, although many might think otherwise.0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Kléber wrote:Contador (many Puerto documents from Fuentes on him = someone attempting a doping programme for him)?
No. How many times does it need to be said that this is no where near the type of evidence against the likes of Lance and that in the document, there is nothing to implicate him.
I like Valverde the rider, I don't particularly like him off the bike.
I like Contador the rider, I like Contador off the bike.
If you read my previous post I said there are other factors. Taking the case of Basso, if Valverde had admitted then I would like him a lot less. I would still like him as I think he is a superb rider but that is it. Basso 2009 = boredom for the most part so I can't even like him for his riding.
So you'd like Valv. less if he just said "yeah I did it and i'm sorry" than his current tactic of getting around insurmountable proof by questioning jursidiction and never setting foot in Italy again?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
If the proof was insurmountable can you please explain why he hasn't been banned everywhere? Surely if there was proof beyond doubt he shouldn't be riding?Contador is the Greatest0
-
He will be banned everywhere, subject to the ruling of the CAS.0
-
frenchfighter wrote:If the proof was insurmountable can you please explain why he hasn't been banned everywhere? Surely if there was proof beyond doubt he shouldn't be riding?
One could make that argument against Armstrong following the Damien Ressiot story in l'Equipe.
Sometimes, rightly or wrongly, people get away with it. Most, if not all, of the Spanish riders implicated in Puerto have managed to avoid justice thus far.0 -
frenchfighter wrote:If the proof was insurmountable can you please explain why he hasn't been banned everywhere? Surely if there was proof beyond doubt he shouldn't be riding?
Valverde claims firstly that the blood int he bags was mishandled resulting in it transforming into a DNA match of himself. That is risible, even his mum would agree that that argument is just not credible.
The reason he's riding is a technicality. A legal squabble over whether CONI has the jurisdiction to extend a ban to the UCI for international application when they don't hold his license. I presume you don't argue that Armstrong's post-dated TUE was proof that he was entitled to use whatever provoked that positive?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
frenchfighter wrote:If the proof was insurmountable can you please explain why he hasn't been banned everywhere? Surely if there was proof beyond doubt he shouldn't be riding?
Are you really that obstinate that you need to ask that question?
The only reason he hasn't been banned everywhere is because of procedural red tape as you clearly aware. Give it time, the ban will come. The case is hung up in the courts.0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:
Valverde claims firstly that the blood int he bags was mishandled resulting in it transforming into a DNA match of himself. That is risible, even his mum would agree that that argument is just not credible.
They should create an award for the worst excuse.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:
Valverde claims firstly that the blood int he bags was mishandled resulting in it transforming into a DNA match of himself. That is risible, even his mum would agree that that argument is just not credible.
They should create an award for the worst excuse.
He's in a fight for the podium with Vandenbroucke (For his dog), Rumsas (For his Mother In Law) and Landis (Whisky)... Incidentally FF, Landis nevr admitted it... do you like him more or less for that?
Oh and Tyler Hamilton and his unborn twin!"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
These bold excuses mock the fans and authorities but they can pay off.
For example by getting his lawyers onto the CAS, Valverde was able to buy some time, ride the Vuelta and win the GC. Stalling works!
Or look at all those who simply deny and manage to duck a ban. The lesson seems to be that you employ wild excuses and hope to get away with it. Sadly those are honest are losers. And that's before we think of the riders who actually try to compete clean.0 -
Bjorn Leukemans: I was in the process of having sex with my missus.
Vino: I crashed and somehow ended up with someone else's blood in my legs.0 -
andyp wrote:frenchfighter wrote:If the proof was insurmountable can you please explain why he hasn't been banned everywhere? Surely if there was proof beyond doubt he shouldn't be riding?
One could make that argument against Armstrong following the Damien Ressiot story in l'Equipe.
Sometimes, rightly or wrongly, people get away with it. Most, if not all, of the Spanish riders implicated in Puerto have managed to avoid justice thus far.
This is the 2nd time you have mentioned the Spanish getting clear. Can you provide concrete examples of all the key people in Puerto, their nationalities and the outcomes.
I repeat that it was the Spanish who first brought Puerto to light, so why would they have done this if, given what you think, they are going to behave improperly subsequently?Contador is the Greatest0 -
Seperate doping from crime: the police and investigating magistrate believed there was something to investigate but in the end, doping was not a crime.frenchfighter wrote:I repeat that it was the Spanish who first brought Puerto to light, so why would they have done this if, given what you think, they are going to behave improperly subsequently?
Only if Fuentes had been found to risk rider health could he be punished. Since he seemed to be storing the blood bags correctly, there was nothing to get him with on a legal basis. The police and judicial authorities aren't there to investigate doping and the WADA code.
Subsequently the Spanish have sat on the information. It was only because the Spanish judge went on holiday that the Italians got the DNA details, the stand-in for the holiday sent the Italians the paperwork "by accident".0 -
How could I forget Vino?!
So then FF, would still like Valverde less if he just came clean, so to speak? Since he is, by all scientific and rational accounts guilty as charged?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0
