¡You mess with Valverde, we mess with you!

2»

Comments

  • markwalker
    markwalker Posts: 953
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    markwalker wrote:
    Kléber wrote:
    No, the rules are flawed. The UCI and IOC have both made seperate formal requests for the full documents from the Spanish judicial authorities and the Spanish cycling federation but the Spanish are refusing to release the dossier to them. In other words, due process and the rule of law is being stymied by the Spanish. They're sitting on the files.

    They may be flawed rules but they are the rules. Until thyere amended then they form the framework within which the athletes work. some might find it distasteful but without them peoples livings could be removed by indignant ragings on the internet or bars.

    Again other athletes have raced and won the tour with actual proven scientific evidence of EPO use and are still welcomed by much of the public.
    Balanced views over, i shall return to my usual mix of bigotry and nationalism

    Is a big bag full of his (DNA cross checked) blood in a noted doping doctor's fridge not scientific proof?


    might be irefutiably his but if the rules werent followed for the collection of that proof then it might not count to sanction him under the rules.

    There is no doubt that Armstrong had used EPO but that evidencee cant be used under the rules to convict him.

    Either there are rules or there arent and would you really want a system where a UCI official such as fat pat to be making arbitary decisions in this area?
  • dulldave
    dulldave Posts: 949
    Yeah , but we're not talking about a worldwide ban at all are we? We're talking about the Italian rules. They say he was doping and now he's banned in Italy.

    That is the reason for all this. The worldwide extension isn't related to this.
    Scottish and British...and a bit French
  • Stuey01
    Stuey01 Posts: 1,273
    disgruntledgoat wrote:

    Is a big bag full of his (DNA cross checked) blood in a noted doping doctor's fridge not scientific proof?

    not unless said blood contains PED's. If not then there is "reasonable doubt"
    Not climber, not sprinter, not rouleur
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,549
    Stuey01 wrote:
    not unless said blood contains PED's. If not then there is "reasonable doubt"

    Sorry, but that's wrong. The current rules state that evidence of doping is enough proof for a conviction, hence how Basso and Scarponi were sanctioned using Puerto evidence.
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    pedro118118 wrote:

    I do sympathise with Basso and others on this one - the Spanish authorities have been a disgrace.

    Basso is a bang to rights doper. He is a cheat. Just because you can't catch all the other cheats doesn't mean this one deserves your sympathy. Along with Valverde he has my contempt.
  • shinyhelmut
    shinyhelmut Posts: 1,364
    I can't sympathise with Basso, the guy to sympathise with is Dan Martin who valverde beat in the vuelta a catalunya last season
  • Dgh
    Dgh Posts: 180
    markwalker wrote:
    Dgh wrote:
    The Spanish cycling establishment simply doesn't seem to get the doping issue.

    I was in Spain shortly after Maribel Moreno's positive for EPO came out, and a cyclign magazine I bought there was full of articles supporting her, critising an govt minister who asked her to "name names", and complaining about the whereabout rules. I haven't heard Valverde being called upon to address the issue of whether or not he doped, as opposed to legal technicalities ( I am a lawyer, by the way).

    The Spanish public, on the other hand, possibly do get it, as public interest in cycling seems to have diminished there (despite 4 consecutive Tour wins).

    What cycling could really use this year is Wiggins to wint he Tour and Gilbert to clean up in the classics and the worlds.

    And you wouldnt suspect he doped?

    No, I wouldn't. Just I don't suspect Greg LeMond, or Philippe Gilbert, or Charly Mottet, or Cav.

Categories