Piti bites again

DaveyL

Lightweight

frenchfighter

Davey, just a quick one for you:

"Imitation is the highest form of flattery"

disgruntledgoat

frenchfighter wrote:

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.

Yeah, he does kind of neglect the important detail here... Cheifly the bags of his blood found in the fridge of a crooked gynaecologist proven to have helped riders dope and latterly proven by DNA analysis to be his.

DaveyL

disgruntledgoat wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

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.

Yeah, he does kind of neglect the important detail here... Cheifly the bags of his blood found in the fridge of a crooked gynaecologist proven to have helped riders dope and latterly proven by DNA analysis to be his.

Details, details...

sherer

DaveyL wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

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.

Yeah, he does kind of neglect the important detail here... Cheifly the bags of his blood found in the fridge of a crooked gynaecologist proven to have helped riders dope and latterly proven by DNA analysis to be his.

Details, details...

maybe he was just thinking that he might want to dope one day in the future but he hasn't so far and Puerto took that option away from him anyway.

That surely explains how there can be no drop off in performance.

disgruntledgoat

Well then he'd be in line for the same 2 year ban Basso copped for "preparing to dope".

However, his initial line was that the samples hadn't been handled correctly and, as a result, had somehow deteriorated into an exact DNA match of one of the world's best one day riders and, just his luck, it was him!

sherer

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Well then he'd be in line for the same 2 year ban Basso copped for "preparing to dope".

However, his initial line was that the samples hadn't been handled correctly and, as a result, had somehow deteriorated into an exact DNA match of one of the world's best one day riders and, just his luck, it was him!

don't forget the bags were labelled up with the first 4 letters of his surname and also the name of the dog he didn't own until later on that year.

Oh no wait he did already own Piti at the time.

Still his excuse sounds very good to me

frenchfighter

In addition, CAS, CONI, WADA and the UCI refused to let the blood be tested to see if it matched in any other laboratory other than where it was done in Italy as he has asked for I think.

---

I come back to the following: Valverde hasn't had any 'crazy', 'cannot be true', 'must be doping' rides that I can recall and no one has provided them. This is unlike for example Basso's Giro performance which would fit under those categories.

disgruntledgoat

frenchfighter wrote:

In addition, CAS, CONI, WADA and the UCI refused to let the blood be tested to see if it matched in any other laboratory other than where it was done in Italy as he has asked for I think.

---

I come back to the following: Valverde hasn't had any 'crazy', 'cannot be true', 'must be doping' rides that I can recall and no one has provided them. This is unlike for example Basso's Giro performance which would fit under those categories.

1) That is because those authorities are just that... Authorities. They set the rules. If you get arrested adn charged with a crime, you don't get to decide the due process do you?

2) You don't need those. Why does he need those rides to be a cheat? Surely if somebody cheats, regardless of the results, they should be treated in accordance with the rules? Is David Millar any less of a cheat because he never tested positive and never pulled out a Pantani-esque performance in the mountains? Are any of the countless Domestiques who have copped bans in teh last ten years not cheats because they never won major stage races? Performances aren't the defining feature of doping. Using substances or practices ruled illegal by the sports governing body are.

3) Wasn't complaining about the impartiality of the labs the chosen tactics of Landis and a certain other rider in who's direction I have no desire to take this thread?

frenchfighter

For point 2, I am addressing the fact that most people seem to be of the opinion that he has been doping for the last four years.

disgruntledgoat

That's the thing about endemic cheating though FF, it robs you of that certainty. Likewise the "oh they were all at it, the results would have been the same anyway" argument. We'll never know.

Richrd2205

frenchfighter wrote:

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.

My reasoning isn't thorough? How, please explain? Simply saying an argument is weak doesn't make it so. I did assume that performance enhancing drugs enhance performance, yes, but surely that's not too wild.
Care also to explain how assessment of performance is subjective when you regularly quote CQ rankings to back up points? Which is it: objective or subjective?
If CQ rankings mean anything, then you can point out the drop in his rankings post '96, surely? Or tell me which GT he won pre '96?
If they are merely subjective, why do you use them to back up points?
Your reasoning is also flawed (&, note how I make an assertion & then go on to back it up). He says he's clean & has been tested & not caught. Do you remember Thomas Frei last week? What about Bernard Kohl? What about Ricco & Schumacher? All of these individuals had long doping careers before being caught. Given these cases, your argument holds no water at all, all of them displayed the behaviour, prior to being banned, that you hold as proof of not doping.

Frenchfighter wrote:

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.

:roll:
Errrm, how do you think the passport works? If we were having this discussion last week, you'd be happy to call me foolish for suggesting Pelozotti wasn't clean? They don't release tittle tattle & suspicion, as you're aware. If you're unsure, re-read the Ashenden interview I referred to.
Could you also let me know how many cases of autologous blood transfusion have been caught thus far by the passport?
Extending your argument, no-one can be using autologous blood transfusion just now since no-one's been caught. I assume that this is now your position.

I don't imply tests are 100% accurate

(Can I just point out that your entire argument is predicated on this assumption. Please re read you last paragraph (If someone's doping, they'd be caught), then re-type this, otherwise, you'll look a little daft)

, 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.

Why are you being coy? I was deliberately avoiding naming him to avoid this slipping into another derailed thread.
I'll tell you what. You go back & read some of those texan cyclists arguments you have had & you'll see the exact same argument being deployed & you refuting it fiercely.
If you say someone's argument isn't thorough & hold a position WRT one rider that you refute when applied to someone else, you shouldn't be surprised at the reaction you get.
I have no interest in that subject coming up again, I was merely pointing out a huge inconsistency in your position.... & being a bit irked that you ignored your own logical fail then told me I wasn't thorough....

frenchfighter

Blimey that is a lot of words to go over and not put in the most efficient of ways....I'll try if I have a moment free.

Just quickly saw you haven't named the person but I assume from what you say that it is Lance. You must be kidding if you think I am going to waste my time talking about that loser and as you say it would divert this thread.

disgruntledgoat

frenchfighter wrote:

Blimey that is a lot of words to go over and not put in the most efficient of ways....I'll try if I have a moment free.

Just quickly saw you haven't named the person but I assume from what you say that it is Lance. You must be kidding if you think I am going to waste my time talking about that loser and as you say it would divert this thread.

Fair does... But what then is the difference between the circumstantial (as you would have it) evidence against Valverde and against, just to mix it up a bit, Rasmussen?

is it just "I don't care if riders i like watching dope"? It's a perfectly respectable viewpoint, as you're simply tying yourself in knots here. Simple yes/no question.. Should Valverde be sanctioned as a result of the Puerto blood?

frenchfighter

I only think a rider should be banned if they have used performance enhancing drugs to enable them to reach a level higher than they would have otherwise achieved. So they can be shown to have taken drugs (failed a test) or I guess shown explicitly to have plannned to take them.

blazing_saddles

So am I reading you right?
You think Valverde may well have used PEDs in the past, but because OP was exposed, in 2006, stopped and experienced no drop of form.
i.e. He's been riding and winning clean, since OP.

Pokerface

For someone that doesn't dope, hasn't dope and has a perfectly clean passport, Valverde certainly seems to see a lot of doctors!


FF - as for his performances - EVERY time he places in the top 5 in a mountain top finish or sprints up hills with ease - I get nervous. He wins a LOT of races. Maybe he's clean, but the likelihood is that he is not.


Again - he was proven beyond all doubt to have EPO tainted blood with a doctor in Spain. The only question then becomes - did he ever USE any of that blood or not?

If you think he doped and DID use that blood (or EPO, etc) - then there is no other way to explain his performances since than to assume he is still using some form of doping (as he has not dropped off since '96).


If you say he never doped - but was only preparing to do so - and has ridden clean this whole time, then he is one of the most truly talented riders out there.


But everything about his public personality and the way he conducts himself and the excuses he comes up with and all his legal wranglings make me think something ain't right with that boy.

Pokerface

frenchfighter wrote:

I only think a rider should be banned if they have used performance enhancing drugs to enable them to reach a level higher than they would have otherwise achieved. So they can be shown to have taken drugs (failed a test) or I guess shown explicitly to have plannned to take them.

Wait - so it's OK to take performance-enhancing drugs if they don't work the way you want them to?!

Is that like saying - it's OK to smoke pot if you don't get high from it?

frenchfighter

For your 2nd post - maybe I didn't say it clearly enough and of course I meant if you take them that is enough.

For your 1st post - it is perfectly possible for a rider to be great, to win a lot of races, be always in the top placings and not be a doper. In every sport there are going to be these people. I think Valverde is one of these.

Don't you think it would make sense for this 'blood' to be tested in a few independent laboratories around Europe to both match it to him and to run it for dope (assuming this is possible and no spoiling, contamination, tampering etc has taken place)?

moray_gub

frenchfighter wrote:

You must be kidding if you think I am going to waste my time talking about that loser and as you say it would divert this thread.

Oh to be a 7 time TDF winner loser eh ! Anyway i would have though anything to divert the thread away from the obvious verbal duffing you are getting here would be to your advantage, put it another way ol black socks himself may be your saviour in this thread.

bigmat

To be fair, Valverde's form did drop off a fair bit from Op Puerto for a couple of seasons. (And was it just me that thought that crash in the 06 tour was a bit convenient?! Like - "I'm getting the hell out of here while the dust settles").

His form has picked up suspiciously over the last two seasons. But, you could argue that his form overall has "dropped off", just that the general standard in the peleton has lowered at the same time due to a new, clean culture emerging. (I think that's b***ocks BTW, just throwing it out there...)

Kléber

You can speculate as long as you like: but his DNA matches and because of this doping offence, that's a two year ban.

frenchfighter

I wouldn't say his form has dropped - more that it has actually got better.

For interest here are his CQ rankings:
02: 335th
03: 6th
04: 5th
05: 14th
06: 2nd
07: 3rd
08: 1st
09: 1st
10: 1st

That is absolutely outstanding.

Roscobob

It's OK to dope if FF likes you.

Richrd2205

frenchfighter wrote:

I wouldn't say his form has dropped - more that it has actually got better.

For interest here are his CQ rankings:
02: 335th
03: 6th
04: 5th
05: 14th
06: 2nd
07: 3rd
08: 1st
09: 1st
10: 1st

That is absolutely outstanding.

I assume you are happy to admit you were wrong then when you said that assessment of performance was subjective, since you're now posting that it's objective.
It is outstanding, everyone agrees & that's the nub of the argument that you don't seem to be getting.
He stopped doping in '96 & he got better appears to be your argument. That really doesn't wash, does it?
He either wasn't using, despite having EPO tainted blood in at least one place (which is a massive assumption) or he has continued to use. You seem to accept that he used pre-Puerto, but insist he stopped, then insist he got better.
Why did he dope in the first place?

Disgruntled Goat gave you a way out earlier, I'd seize it with both hands.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting someone you like & admire to be a doper. There's everything wrong with insisting that it simply can't be the case that he is despite all the evidence to the contary.
You're kinda crossing that line at the moment

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

Don't you think it would make sense for this 'blood' to be tested in a few independent laboratories around Europe to both match it to him and to run it for dope (assuming this is possible and no spoiling, contamination, tampering etc has taken place)?

It's good enough for murder and rape cases. They don't send DNA tests all round Europe to several places. The police do the test in their own labs.

Kléber

I'd be astounding if I had Fuentes and a fridge full of blood. It's easy to be exciting when you have the best doctors on call.

ratsbeyfus

frenchfighter wrote:

I only think a rider should be banned if they have used performance enhancing drugs to enable them to reach a level higher than they would have otherwise achieved. So they can be shown to have taken drugs (failed a test) or I guess shown explicitly to have plannned to take them.

:shock:

Time to get your coat Mr FF you really are going nowhere with your 'argument' and beginning to look a bit silly.

Kléber

blazing_saddles

Pat McQuaid:

"It's the last time Valverde wins”

http://www.as.com/ciclismo/articulo/ciclismo-escandalo-valverde-siga-corriendo/dasclm/20100504dasdaicic_1/Tes

Still, saves work on the old signature line.