Latest on Valverde vs CAS
Comments
-
greeny12 wrote:
The ASO should just have a quiet word in the shell-like of Caisse d'Epargne's head honcho. They own the Tour, they can disinvite who they like, publicly or privately.
Difficult to dis-invite a major sponsor of an ASO event though...
Wheels within Wheels.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:greeny12 wrote:
The ASO should just have a quiet word in the shell-like of Caisse d'Epargne's head honcho. They own the Tour, they can disinvite who they like, publicly or privately.
Difficult to dis-invite a major sponsor of an ASO event though...
Wheels within Wheels.
I was thinking just Mr Valverde, not the whole team (sorry, that wasn't clear).My cycle racing blog: http://cyclingapprentice.wordpress.com/
If you live in or near Sussex, check this out:
http://ontherivet.ning.com/0 -
Btw, for golden boy Basso:Basso's contract with CSC was terminated by mutual agreement on October 18, 2006. On October 27, 2006 the case was dropped by the Federazione Ciclistica Italiana due to lack of evidence, and he was then employed in December 2006 by Discovery Channel. On April 24, 2007 Basso was suspended by Discovery Channel when the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) reopened his case. On 1 May 2007 Basso requested to be released from his Discovery Channel contract. This was granted. Basso attended a hearing on May 2, and on May 7, 2007, admitted that he was Birillo. Basso was suspended on May 16, 2007.
-Wiki
Italians stopping investigation due to lack of evidence................these Italians are super shady; I would be the last to back any 'authority' for anything.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Btw, for golden boy Basso:Basso's contract with CSC was terminated by mutual agreement on October 18, 2006. On October 27, 2006 the case was dropped by the Federazione Ciclistica Italiana due to lack of evidence, and he was then employed in December 2006 by Discovery Channel. On April 24, 2007 Basso was suspended by Discovery Channel when the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) reopened his case. On 1 May 2007 Basso requested to be released from his Discovery Channel contract. This was granted. Basso attended a hearing on May 2, and on May 7, 2007, admitted that he was Birillo. Basso was suspended on May 16, 2007.
-Wiki
Italians stopping investigation due to lack of evidence................these Italians are super shady; I would be the last to back any 'authority' for anything.
Your point is that Basso was investigated by his national federation, twice, copped to "intention to dope" on the evidence of lots of his blood being proven to have been stored in a Madrid clinic and did two years.
This is different to Valverde's situation (minus the resolution) how? Are you saying the Italians were able to manipulate either Valverde's saliva or somebody elses blood into a DNA match?"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:
Italians stopping investigation due to lack of evidence................these Italians are super shady; I would be the last to back any 'authority' for anything.
FF - They got the evidence inbetween the 2 events. Nothing shady involved.
A doping doctor is bust, Valverde's blood is found in his fridge. Why is it so hard for you to accept his guilt?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Stylish riders don't dope.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
Now I get it.
It's like the old cowboy films. The good guys wore white hats; the bad guys, black.
Pro-cycling is just like that, but with shoe colours.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
These Italians are dodgy?
Was it the Italians who swept Puerto under the carpet?
Was it the italians that passed new laws to hinder the work of the anti-doping authorities?
Was it the organiser of an Italian race that decided to ban Spanish riders because it didn't like the outcome of a Spanish doping ban?
If we're going to be calling anyone dodgy in all of this then it should be the Spanish not the Italians.Scottish and British...and a bit French0 -
Valverde's now questioning the impartiality of one of the CAS adjudicators;
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverd ... talian-ban
FFS, he's been caught bang to rights after escaping justice for the best part of four years. Give it up! :evil:0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:
But Valverde wasn't banned for that reason. He was banned because the DNA in a saliva sample taken at the 2008 Tour De France matched that of one of the blood bags recovered from Fuentes premises. He claimed the match arose becuase the Fuentes sample hadn't been stored correctly...frenchfighter wrote:Dave_1 wrote:I reckon he's still one of the best in the world clean as a whistle.
As evidenced by last year's huge performances.
Can anyone name the Italian riders who were banned simply becuase their name appeared in the Puerto docs and NO other reason?
.
Please present evidence Valverde was clean last year.
and proove a negative? please provide proof he wasnt........0 -
andyp wrote:
As to Valverde being clean last year, please. He's gotten away with it for so long, why on earth should he now stop, especially given the riches it continues to bring him?
Or for that matter David Millar or any one of the other caught dopers???
Or the entire british track team, theyve not been caught,
Andy, your comments are often bang on but theres a certain amount of pious indignation and fingerpointing and im not singling you out.
the truth is it looks like Valverde cheated, but it looks like most succesful cyclists have cheated id rather watch him race than Armstrong and Armstrong was never banned despite the overwhelming proof that he did.0 -
He's been proven to have doped in the past and continues to win major races. On the balance of probabilities it is more likely that he's still doping than not.0
-
blackpanther wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:
But Valverde wasn't banned for that reason. He was banned because the DNA in a saliva sample taken at the 2008 Tour De France matched that of one of the blood bags recovered from Fuentes premises. He claimed the match arose becuase the Fuentes sample hadn't been stored correctly...frenchfighter wrote:Dave_1 wrote:I reckon he's still one of the best in the world clean as a whistle.
As evidenced by last year's huge performances.
Can anyone name the Italian riders who were banned simply becuase their name appeared in the Puerto docs and NO other reason?
.
Please present evidence Valverde was clean last year.
and proove a negative? please provide proof he wasnt........
I think you've confused the concept of proving a negative.
"Please provide proof he wasn't" is an example of asking for proof of a negative. The clue is in Wasn't. IE Was not.
French Fighter asserted that Valverde was ridng clean last year. I asked him on what evidence he was basing that assertion. Fair question, in my book."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 -
my point is that were all ready to point the guilty finger perhaps a little too easily and without consistancy which is fine but should be acknowledged.
eg AndyPs argument would be extended to miillar thus, David Millar only got caught once on the balance of probablilities hes running out of places to stick the needle becasue he continues to be a rider that performs at the highest level.
The evidence that Valverde rode clean last year is provided by the UCI and other testing organisations. if he werent he would be sanctioned. Its the same evidence we have that david millar rode clean last year and Cavendish and Armstrong and Wiggins.
Of course we can dismiss that as on the balance of probabilities they wouldnt get caught and in anycase 2 of those has previous.0 -
Fair enough Mark, however, the fact that Valverde has ridden, unsanctioned since at least 2007, for transfusing blood iwht physical evidence to prove those allegations, places him (in my view, you may disagree) in a different category to Cavendish (who has nothing to link him to any doping investigation), Millar (who was caught and served his time) and Armstrong (who i'm not even getting into here!).
Plus two of those have internal testing programmes on their teams which instill some measure on confidence in their performances."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 -
I agree with you on the perspective that people have and i hope no one interprets my post as a suggestion that Cavendish or Wiggins has ever doped0
-
Didn't Gianpaolo Caruso get a ban, or was he sacked by Lampre and couldn't find a team for two years?Kléber wrote:
Yes. Scarponi and Basso.frenchfighter wrote:Can anyone name the Italian riders who were banned simply becuase their name appeared in the Puerto docs and NO other reason?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Dave_1 wrote:I reckon he's still one of the best in the world clean as a whistle.
As evidenced by last year's huge performances.
Can anyone name the Italian riders who were banned simply becuase their name appeared in the Puerto docs and NO other reason?
I can't name one who wasn't. CONI took them all down.
On the other hand, I can't name a Spanish rider who was slapped with a federation ban, courtesy of OP.
CAS, we have to accept as impartial on this, thought the evidence against Valverde, was good.
"The evidence analysed by the judicial authorities and used in the CONI proceedings was not only admissible but also relevant and could reasonably lead to the outcome determined by the CONI Anti-Doping Tribunal."
Could be a major headache as to whether or not titles won, while CONI's ban was in force are valid, even IF he rode them clean."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
blackpanther wrote:Or for that matter David Millar or any one of the other caught dopers???
Millar has shown repentance and has been an outspoken critic of doping since his return to the peloton. That doesn't mean he's clean of course, but it would be a major shock if he was still doping.
Valverde's statements on doping are, at best, mealy mouthed.
There is a difference between the two in my view.0 -
Valverde has never said he is innocent during the formal appeal, his legal case to CAS was all about trying to dispute CONI's ability to rule on a Spanish matter. Not once did his appeal try to clear him links to Puerto/Fuentes.
There was a moment when his entourage said he didn't even have a dog called Piti, that he acquired the German Shepherd after the affair. Only a journalist said he visited Valverde in early June 2006 and record the dog, and its name, in a note book. In other words, pork pies in Spain.
The bloke isn't just looking like a doper, he's beginning to look extra-shifty: he's fast approaching Landis-levels of denial. I can fully understand why he's blowing so much money on lawyers and appeals (he stands to lose a lot) but something in me just wants to see a rider finally say "look I got caught, I'll do the time, I'm sorry"0 -
Kléber wrote:Valverde has never said he is innocent during the formal appeal, his legal case to CAS was all about trying to dispute CONI's ability to rule on a Spanish matter. Not once did his appeal try to clear him links to Puerto/Fuentes.
There was a moment when his entourage said he didn't even have a dog called Piti, that he acquired the German Shepherd after the affair. Only a journalist said he visited Valverde in early June 2006 and record the dog, and its name, in a note book. In other words, pork pies in Spain.
The bloke isn't just looking like a doper, he's beginning to look extra-shifty: he's fast approaching Landis-levels of denial. I can fully understand why he's blowing so much money on lawyers and appeals (he stands to lose a lot) but something in me just wants to see a rider finally say "look I got caught, I'll do the time, I'm sorry"
If he'd done that in the first place, he'd be back in the fold now. Albeit without a GT, but I think he'll lose that eventually.___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
Isn't the point that people are suggesting that Valverde's good recent form suggests that he may not have been doping in the past or that whether he was is irrelevent as he is riding just as well whilst clean. In that context surely it is reasonable to question whether he is in fact riding clean now?
I agree that normally it would be unfair to expect a rider to prove that they are riding clean in the absence of evidence to the contrary.0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
Lionel Birnie's take on it
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... never.html
Got all the relevant facts for those who concern themselves with those kind of things.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:SpaceJunk wrote:Thanks for that iain - appreciate it!
So, is anyone going to be awfully sad about it.
I mean, it's lucky he's not won anything big since he should've been banned from racing. Has he?
Well, I know David Millar will be upset about it. Here's his thoughts from CS Mag:
“Valverde is a tragedy of the system. He was possibly into it up to his neck, but we know the system is at fault with him. He’s a phenomenal bike rider, but the tragedy is that he’ll never be a great rider because he will always have that cloud [the doping suspicions] hanging over him”.
Yes, such a shame he missed out on a chance to be a great. Perhaps he should have fessed up, done his time time and come back clean.0 -
If they do extend the ban will he lose his wins - it's not as if there is evidence he was doping for his Vuelta and other wins since Puerto..
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Its a freak of the system, the mans innocent fry Armstrong hes the real cheat or maybe hes had his ban?...................................................................0
-
Kléber wrote:Valverde has never said he is innocent during the formal appeal, his legal case to CAS was all about trying to dispute CONI's ability to rule on a Spanish matter. Not once did his appeal try to clear him links to Puerto/Fuentes.
There was a moment when his entourage said he didn't even have a dog called Piti, that he acquired the German Shepherd after the affair. Only a journalist said he visited Valverde in early June 2006 and record the dog, and its name, in a note book. In other words, pork pies in Spain.
The bloke isn't just looking like a doper, he's beginning to look extra-shifty: he's fast approaching Landis-levels of denial. I can fully understand why he's blowing so much money on lawyers and appeals (he stands to lose a lot) but something in me just wants to see a rider finally say "look I got caught, I'll do the time, I'm sorry"
What a masterstroke of idiocy that would have been if he really hadn't had a dog: "I know how to distance myself from these allegations that the 'Valv.Piti' blood bags contain my blood and that I have a dog called 'Piti' - I'll buy a dog and call it 'Piti'!"0 -
Now, if he'd been really clever, he would have found a cat and named it Piti Me.
Although, cats being cats, the feline would probably have grassed on him.0
