Piti bites again

2456

Comments

  • Gazzaputt
    Gazzaputt Posts: 3,227
    Nickwill wrote:
    Valverde is a blot on the sport. If all things were equal, all Spanish riders would be suspended from competition until the authorities did the right thing and stopped covering up. I can't help but be suspicious of all Spanish riders while the current non cooperation is still the norm.

    +1

    I cannot watch any Spanish rider without suspicion.
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Are you able to answer this question.

    In 2006, someone was found to have blood in the hands of a Dr known to help doped riders
    Nothing happened to this rider as a result
    Four years have passed and they have won many top races, are an exciting, stylish rider, they are versatile and don't look like they are going to stop winning despite mental discomfort from so people saying they are doping
    In these four years they haven't failed a dope test and haven't had passport irregularities
    In this same period there are a large number of riders, both very high profile and not so, who have been caught for a variety of doping offences.

    Given all this, do you think this rider has doped to win in the last four years?

    I am simply saying that given this I don't think he did and am not going to sit there watching races not enjoying myself because some people think he did.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    BUDGIE BOY. If you not intelligent enough to put your point across without abuse I suggest you go back to the school playground.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Are you able to answer this question.

    In 2006, someone was found to have blood in the hands of a Dr known to help doped riders
    Nothing happened to this rider as a result
    Four years have passed and they have won many top races, are an exciting, stylish rider, they are versatile and don't look like they are going to stop winning despite mental discomfort from so people saying they are doping
    In these four years they haven't failed a dope test and haven't had passport irregularities
    In this same period there are a large number of riders, both very high profile and not so, who have been caught for a variety of doping offences.

    Given all this, do you think this rider has doped to win in the last four years?

    I am simply saying that given this I don't think he did and am not going to sit there watching races not enjoying myself because some people think he did.

    I'll answer! It doesn't matter. If evidence proves that he was guilty of blood doping in 2006, then he should still recieve a ban from the date he is convicted. Whether he has doped since is neither here nor there, he was still dishonest and won races fraudulently. What was to stop him coming forward and admitting it before he was caught or just copping to it when he was caught?

    By the way "some people say he doped" is a touch disingenuous when "some people" include the sport's governing body, the Italian Olympic committee and WADA.
    "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'"

    @gietvangent
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    frenchfighter wrote:
    I have no problem holding a different opinion to the majority. ...


    That is not strictly true because often when you are asked about your opinion you refuse to discuss it which is not really the actions of someone who is comfortable holding a different opinion to others.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Pokerface wrote:
    So - basically what you are saying is you enjoy watching riders tear up the road, regardless of whether or not they are tooled up to the gills?

    I can understand that. I love seeing a rider perform super-human feats of strength and endurance on the road. But if they are breaking the rules to do it - I don't see the point. You're not really 'better' than someone else if you have to cheat to beat them.

    Quite simply, as I have said this numerous times before, why should I sit there and say I think that rider is doping as he is doing something exceptional? Why can't I enjoy that, then if that rider is found to have doped in that period I can simply say, oh well so it wasn't naturally enduced and then will lose some respect for that rider.

    As for Valverde, do you think he is 'tearing up the road'?! I see no examples of 'crazy', 'cannot be true', 'must be doping' riding by him, unlike Cancellara for example (who I do not think doped, based on the same sort of reasoning as above).
    Contador is the Greatest
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    Valverde denies all work with Fuentes, he says his DNA doesn't even match the blood pouch found in Fuentes' fridge, the one labelled "Valv.Piti". Valverde even tried at one point to say he didn't have a dog called Piti when Puerto first happened, that he acquired after and that this was all a big plot against him. Until a journalist showed him notes and photos from May 2006, where Valverde is at home with an adult German Shepherd named Piti.

    He couldn't talk straight if he tried. Yes he's an exciting rider but it's easy to be exciting when you've got every doping doctor on speed dial. But he's a liar and a cheat and I hope that he gets banned.

    Finally, whilst he's the most obvious example, he is only one of several riders who are shysters and crooks, we should not seek to pin all the ills of the sport on one rider alone.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,812
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    I disagree, but respect your stance on the latest two "rings" with said connections to Valverde. These haven't been proven yet, at least evidence providing that proof hasn't been made public. If you're inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt then more power to you.

    Just a note on OG.
    according to sources close to the investigation, the names listed in the documents seized were uncoded, and can directly link the Spaniard (Valverde) to doping, unlike the documents that were seized from Fuentes during the Operación Puerto raids.

    So, while with OP we have the EPO, DNA confirmed blood bags, OG has Valverde linked directly by name to doping. What little is in the public domain, looks pretty conclusive, but maybe insufficient to produce a "stand alone" sanction.
    Collectively, Valverde has been tied into a damning 3 ring circus.

    Were this Armstrong, FF would be calling for blood..........
    ..............quite rightly.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • TheStone
    TheStone Posts: 2,291
    How many doctors does one rider need?

    Was he taking his 'charged' blood from one and getting it 'super charged' at the next?
    exercise.png
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    One thing is wrong though. OG dates from many years ago and has nothing to do with 2006-10, which I explicitly referred to.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    Now Valv is saying he might sue the UCI and Quaid for tarnishing his image. And of course stresses that he has never tested positive.


    So - the question is - if he's been riding clean all this time, and winning as easily as he has done - why would he have needed to dope in the first place?

    Is the consensus that he is riding clean since Puerto? Or that he has somehow managed to beat the tests so far?
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Are you able to answer this question.

    In 2006, someone was found to have blood in the hands of a Dr known to help doped riders
    Nothing happened to this rider as a result
    Four years have passed and they have won many top races, are an exciting, stylish rider, they are versatile and don't look like they are going to stop winning despite mental discomfort from so people saying they are doping
    In these four years they haven't failed a dope test and haven't had passport irregularities
    In this same period there are a large number of riders, both very high profile and not so, who have been caught for a variety of doping offences.

    Given all this, do you think this rider has doped to win in the last four years?

    Telling that all people but one who think he is doping go quiet when I write something like this.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    frenchfighter wrote:
    As for Valverde, do you think he is 'tearing up the road'?! I see no examples of 'crazy', 'cannot be true', 'must be doping' riding by him, unlike Cancellara for example (who I do not think doped, based on the same sort of reasoning as above).

    Got any examples by Valverde Poker face?
    Contador is the Greatest
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    I disagree, but respect your stance on the latest two "rings" with said connections to Valverde. These haven't been proven yet, at least evidence providing that proof hasn't been made public. If you're inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt then more power to you.

    Just a note on OG.
    according to sources close to the investigation, the names listed in the documents seized were uncoded, and can directly link the Spaniard (Valverde) to doping, unlike the documents that were seized from Fuentes during the Operación Puerto raids.

    So, while with OP we have the EPO, DNA confirmed blood bags, OG has Valverde linked directly by name to doping. What little is in the public domain, looks pretty conclusive, but maybe insufficient to produce a "stand alone" sanction.
    Collectively, Valverde has been tied into a damning 3 ring circus.

    Were this Armstrong, FF would be calling for blood..........
    ..............quite rightly.


    As a follow up to this, whilst I respect FF's right to disagree, or to wait on due process on teh other two investigations, I would believe nearly anything linking Valverde with doping after the way he has behaved since OP named him and CONI proved it.
    "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'"

    @gietvangent
  • calvjones
    calvjones Posts: 3,850
    frenchfighter wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Are you able to answer this question.

    In 2006, someone was found to have blood in the hands of a Dr known to help doped riders
    Nothing happened to this rider as a result
    Four years have passed and they have won many top races, are an exciting, stylish rider, they are versatile and don't look like they are going to stop winning despite mental discomfort from so people saying they are doping
    In these four years they haven't failed a dope test and haven't had passport irregularities
    In this same period there are a large number of riders, both very high profile and not so, who have been caught for a variety of doping offences.

    Given all this, do you think this rider has doped to win in the last four years?

    Telling that all people but one who think he is doping go quiet when I write something like this.

    Maybe that's because we can't be @rsed arguing against your hopelessly inconsistent positions anymore.
    ___________________

    Strava is not Zen.
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    Frenchie, one thing I find a bit odd is that you take a very tolerant understanding position on Valv.Piti, when there is a whole lot of evidence that he's doped, or at least prepared to dope (Bassoesque). CONI banned him, CAS upheld the ban, the Spanish simply refuse to act on the evidence. Yet, you get all fired up about someone else's sock colour. It seems quite an odd value set to me, indifference to confirmed doping, yet outrage at perceived poor wardrobe choice.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,111
    Exactly. There's no point arguing with you because you just go off in a strop when you lose.

    You are in a tiny minority if you think Valverde is clean and are deluded as he is if you think there is a vendetta against him. He was caught bang to rights and the only reason he's escaped sanction is because the Spanish Cycling Federation have sat on their hands. The evidence is strong enough for a conviction, as the CONI charge has been upheld by both the UCI and CAS.
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    From 2006 to 2010? Which is what I am talking about.

    If the UCI eventualy ban him then he will simply come back in 2 years (aged only 32) and start winning top races again.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • SpaceJunk
    SpaceJunk Posts: 1,157
    frenchfighter wrote:
    From 2006 to 2010? Which is what I am talking about.

    If the UCI eventualy ban him then he will simply come back in 2 years (aged only 32) and start winning top races again.

    FF, quick one: Do you believe that Valverde doped in the Puerto era?
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    frenchfighter wrote:
    From 2006 to 2010? Which is what I am talking about.

    If the UCI eventualy ban him then he will simply come back in 2 years (aged only 32) and start winning top races again.

    If its that simple then why doesnt he just admit what every governing body has proven to the world and take it on the chin?
    "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'"

    @gietvangent
  • Richrd2205
    Richrd2205 Posts: 1,267
    edited May 2010
    frenchfighter wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Are you able to answer this question.

    In 2006, someone was found to have blood in the hands of a Dr known to help doped riders
    Nothing happened to this rider as a result
    Four years have passed and they have won many top races, are an exciting, stylish rider, they are versatile and don't look like they are going to stop winning despite mental discomfort from so people saying they are doping
    In these four years they haven't failed a dope test and haven't had passport irregularities
    In this same period there are a large number of riders, both very high profile and not so, who have been caught for a variety of doping offences.

    Given all this, do you think this rider has doped to win in the last four years?

    Telling that all people but one who think he is doping go quiet when I write something like this.
    It's not remotely telling since it's been done to death on other threads. To summarise:
    -Valverde's performance didn't drop post '96, therefore one of the following must be the case:
    1. That the drugs don't work & that a number of top names spend a serious amount of money & risk sanction for no advantage at all, or:
    2. He has continued to dope
    Occam's razor would give 2 as the most likely outcome....

    Just a couple of other points:
    -(Re my bold in your quote) how do you know this? Ashenden is quite clear that the general public won't get to know until after a positive, his profile could be all over the place & just one step short of a sanction & we'd get the same response as to a completely sound profile. It's best not to base arguments on assumptions, no?
    -If the tests are 100% effective, as you seem to imply, why are you so anti a certain other fairly successful rider who's recently made a comeback? Your position is prima facie inconsistent.

    (edited for stupid typo that made the post make little sense)
  • nickwill
    nickwill Posts: 2,735
    Richrd2205 wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Are you able to answer this question.

    In 2006, someone was found to have blood in the hands of a Dr known to help doped riders
    Nothing happened to this rider as a result
    Four years have passed and they have won many top races, are an exciting, stylish rider, they are versatile and don't look like they are going to stop winning despite mental discomfort from so people saying they are doping
    In these four years they haven't failed a dope test and haven't had passport irregularities
    In this same period there are a large number of riders, both very high profile and not so, who have been caught for a variety of doping offences.

    Given all this, do you think this rider has doped to win in the last four years?

    Telling that all people but one who think he is doping go quiet when I write something like this.
    It's not remotely telling since it's been done to death on other threads. To summarise:
    -Valverde's performance didn't drop post '96, therefore one of the following must be the case:
    1. That the drugs don't work & that a number of top names spend a serious amount of money & risk sanction for no advantage at all, or:
    2. He has continued to dope
    Occam's razor would give 1. as the most likely outcome....

    Just a couple of other points:
    -(Re my bold in your quote) how do you know this? Ashenden is quite clear that the general public won't get to know until after a positive, his profile could be all over the place & just one step short of a sanction & we'd get the same response as to a completely sound profile. It's best not to base arguments on assumptions, no?
    -If the tests are 100% effective, as you seem to imply, why are you so anti a certain other fairly successful rider who's recently made a comeback? Your position is prima facie inconsistent.
    That's at the root of one of my main objections to FF's posts.
    http://lakescyclist.wordpress.com/
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    Richrd2205 wrote:
    Valverde's performance didn't drop post '96, therefore one of the following must be the case:
    1. That the drugs don't work & that a number of top names spend a serious amount of money & risk sanction for no advantage at all, or:
    2. He has continued to dope
    Occam's razor would give 1. as the most likely outcome....


    I would disagree. The most likely outcome is that he has continued to dope (out of your 2 choices).

    It has been proven time and time again that many of the top performers and performances were drug-fueled.
  • Richrd2205
    Richrd2205 Posts: 1,267
    I would disagree. The most likely outcome is that he has continued to dope (out of your 2 choices).

    It has been proven time and time again that many of the top performers and performances were drug-fueled.

    Well spotted! That was a typo & you are absolutely correct! :oops:
    Should check posts before hitting submit
    (& am editing original)
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    Anyone for Option 3? Other people have stopped doping too?

    Me neither
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Richrd2205 wrote:
    -If the tests are 100% effective, as you seem to imply, why are you so anti a certain other fairly successful rider who's recently made a comeback? Your position is prima facie inconsistent.

    Duuuuh. It's because he wears black socks, innit....
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • calvjones
    calvjones Posts: 3,850
    Timoid. wrote:
    Anyone for Option 3? Other people have stopped doping too?

    Me neither

    Option 4 - everyone doping less (inc Valv)?

    I'm thinking Vino and Kash in the Vuelta; Basso in the '06 Giro... we don't really see superhuman performances quite so obvious.

    I'm not sure winning his first GT last year can in any way be construed as evidence of him being clean...
    ___________________

    Strava is not Zen.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Just a rather random, Piti-related musing. But for a silly crash and broken collarbone, he could have won the 2006 Tour, thanks to Basso and Ullrich getting booted as Puerto broke. Landis might still be riding for a top team as well...
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Richrd2205 wrote:
    It's not remotely telling since it's been done to death on other threads. To summarise:
    -Valverde's performance didn't drop post '96, therefore one of the following must be the case:
    1. That the drugs don't work & that a number of top names spend a serious amount of money & risk sanction for no advantage at all, or:
    2. He has continued to dope
    Occam's razor would give 1. as the most likely outcome....

    Just a couple of other points:
    -(Re my bold in your quote) how do you know this? Ashenden is quite clear that the general public won't get to know until after a positive, his profile could be all over the place & just one step short of a sanction & we'd get the same response as to a completely sound profile. It's best not to base arguments on assumptions, no?
    -If the tests are 100% effective, as you seem to imply, why are you so anti a certain other fairly successful rider who's recently made a comeback? Your position is prima facie inconsistent.

    For the first part: I will maintain he didn't dope in the four years I am talking about, until evidence is shown. Why? For the reasoning I have already posted. Your logic to say his performance hasn't dropped (which is subjective) so he is still doping is very weak and far from thorough.

    For the 2nd part - I don't, I only go on what is released to us. There is no point me assuming that there is something wrong with his unless it was released. Or to put it another way, if there was something about his passport, he would be named like those others recently and if it was serious enough to lead to a ban then he would be banned. As such neither of these are the case.
    I don't imply tests are 100% accurate, just that given that so many people are found to dope, using a variety of substances, it is not far-fetched to say that if someone was doping for four years, especially a rider who 'is under suspiscion' (so I would assume is more closely monitored), they would have been caught. I guess it is possible to evade, but would think it hard.
    In terms of the 'rider' you refer to, if you be direct and name him then I can addresses his case.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    He claims that he has been tested with considerable regularity and nothing has been found. "My biological samples are analyzed in the most important anti-doping laboratories worldwide. No banned substance has ever been found in my body and my biological profile is flawless.”

    No comments necessary on this particular point.
    Contador is the Greatest

Categories