No worldwide ban for Valverde

bipedal

If his best defense at CAS is to say that the dog doesn't exist (despite documentary evidence to the contrary) then surely he'll be screwed... eventually

markwalker

pedro118118 wrote:

That's as may be, but to my mind, "laws" and "rules" should be consistent and equally applied to all. Isn't this the cornerstone of the application of justice in a civilised society. Why should sport or cycling be any different?

Put in rather more basic terms, Valverde appears to have 'got away with it', when others have been properly investigated and sactioned (or cleared as the case may be).

And dressing it up with a resigned "he's not the first and won't be the last" is hardly compelling.

They are and were equally applied the relevant authorities do what they can do. Valv is no more guilty than armstrong becasue if he had been bustable he would have done.

Have you ever been over the speed limit? would you like your licence removed because some bloke on an internet foprum without the benifit of facts believes youve constantly broken the limnit and should hae accrued enough points for a ban? Thats no less ridiculous.

I believe Armstrong is a cheat but i know that by hook or crook hes never been found guilty.

gabriel959

Interesting development.

Apparently Valverde has agreed to have a DNA sample to be taken at an independent clinic but the CONI has refused.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-offers-to-submit-dna-sample?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=news_headlines

calvjones

gabriel959 wrote:

Interesting development.

Apparently Valverde has agreed to have a DNA sample to be taken at an independent clinic but the CONI has refused.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-offers-to-submit-dna-sample?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=news_headlines

I'd believe this if CAS or WADA (or even, maybe, UCI) told me but I think I'll wait for confirmation from someone other than the rider under investigation.

Also, if this is the case, why wasn't his defence 'it's not my blood' from day one? Odd.