Valverde back in a month or so most likely with Movistar ..

moray_gub

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/10153 ... ikely.aspx

Ok so not the greatest surprise and interesting to note from that article he is eliglble for the Olympics next year after a CAS ruling . Be interesting to see how he goes early season and he seems to think he can target the overall in next years TDF.

dougzz

It will do cycling proud to see him back, especially if he can achieve his goals and wear yellow and the rainbow stripes.....................

NOT

cogidubnus

If he does those two whilst cycling clean it will do cycling credit that they catch dopers and reform them. If he hasn't changed well then yes I am with you

keef_zip

Cogidubnus wrote:

If he does those two whilst cycling clean it will do cycling credit that they catch dopers and reform them. If he hasn't changed well then yes I am with you

What a crock of s@@t?

The point is that he still hasn't admitted it yet!

moray_gub

keef_zip wrote:

Cogidubnus wrote:

If he does those two whilst cycling clean it will do cycling credit that they catch dopers and reform them. If he hasn't changed well then yes I am with you

What a crock of s@@t?

The point is that he still hasn't admitted it yet!

Whether he admits it or not is pretty much irrelevant really he has had his ban and he is free to race whether we like it or not.

dougzz

Yep, but he's still a scumbag. I'm not sure how directly you can make the link, but anyone that thinks sponsors being thin on the ground and events like this not being in some way associated, is firmly head in the sand.

keef_zip

Moray Gub wrote:

keef_zip wrote:

Cogidubnus wrote:

If he does those two whilst cycling clean it will do cycling credit that they catch dopers and reform them. If he hasn't changed well then yes I am with you

What a crock of s@@t?

The point is that he still hasn't admitted it yet!

Whether he admits it or not is pretty much irrelevant really he has had his ban and he is free to race whether we like it or not.

That as may be, and thanks for stating the obvious, but my point was relating to Cogidubnus's quote = "it will do cycling credit" - NO. IT. WONT.

It barely does cycling credit when dopers come back repentant, let alone those that are not.

Valverde is a prize pr@ck. Simples.

pedro118118

dougzz wrote:

Yep, but he's still a scumbag. I'm not sure how directly you can make the link, but anyone that thinks sponsors being thin on the ground and events like this not being in some way associated, is firmly head in the sand.

"Scumbag"?
Know him well do you?
Get a grip.

I appreciate that emotions run high on forums such as these, but I think such terminology is best reserved for those more deserving. As opposed to a bike rider, who has received a suspension from riding bikes.

I'm not a fan of his, but...........errr............perspective anyone........................

moray_gub

pedro118118 wrote:

dougzz wrote:

Yep, but he's still a scumbag. I'm not sure how directly you can make the link, but anyone that thinks sponsors being thin on the ground and events like this not being in some way associated, is firmly head in the sand.

"Scumbag"?
Know him well do you?
Get a grip.

I appreciate that emotions run high on forums such as these, but I think such terminology is best reserved for those more deserving. As opposed to a bike rider, who has received a suspension from riding bikes.

I'm not a fan of his, but...........errr............perspective anyone........................

+1 couldnt agree more

Vincent Tabak is a scumbag , Valverde is just biker rider who cheated and got caught.

keef_zip

pedro118118 wrote:

As opposed to a bike rider, who has received a suspension from riding bikes.

I'm not a fan of his, but...........errr............perspective anyone........................

The perspective is that a doper is a fraudster (fraudster=scum, in may people's opinion). That's why people take offence against him and others like him.

moray_gub

keef_zip wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

keef_zip wrote:

Cogidubnus wrote:

If he does those two whilst cycling clean it will do cycling credit that they catch dopers and reform them. If he hasn't changed well then yes I am with you

What a crock of s@@t?

The point is that he still hasn't admitted it yet!

Whether he admits it or not is pretty much irrelevant really he has had his ban and he is free to race whether we like it or not.

That as may be, and thanks for stating the obvious, but my point was relating to Cogidubnus's quote = "it will do cycling credit" - NO. IT. WONT.

It barely does cycling credit when dopers come back repentant, let alone those that are not.

Valverde is a prize pr@ck. Simples.

Maybe its just me but i dont get this overwhelming (some would say irrational) desire some fans seem to have for a doper to confess all his sins. As if it somehow makes on iota of a difference.

moray_gub

keef_zip wrote:

pedro118118 wrote:

As opposed to a bike rider, who has received a suspension from riding bikes.

I'm not a fan of his, but...........errr............perspective anyone........................

The perspective is that a doper is a fraudster (fraudster=scum, in may people's opinion). That's why people take offence against him and others like him.

So what about a football player diving to get a penalty is that in the scumbag category ? or coaches swicthing rugby balls iin contravention of the rules is that in the scumbag category ? be interesting to see where the scumbag line starts and finishes in relation to cheating at sport.

pedro118118

keef_zip wrote:

pedro118118 wrote:

As opposed to a bike rider, who has received a suspension from riding bikes.

I'm not a fan of his, but...........errr............perspective anyone........................

The perspective is that a doper is a fraudster (fraudster=scum, in may people's opinion). That's why people take offence against him and others like him.

An equally obsurd comparison.
There are many degrees of fraud, very few of which would elevate the fraudster to that of "scumbag". Conning the elderley/vulnerable out of their life-savings perhaps?
What Valverde did was cheat at cycling, He was caught and has serviced his punishment.
I'm not suggesting we get the bunting out, but not the gallows either!

cogidubnus

pedro118118 wrote:

dougzz wrote:

Yep, but he's still a scumbag. I'm not sure how directly you can make the link, but anyone that thinks sponsors being thin on the ground and events like this not being in some way associated, is firmly head in the sand.

"Scumbag"?
Know him well do you?
Get a grip.

I appreciate that emotions run high on forums such as these, but I think such terminology is best reserved for those more deserving. As opposed to a bike rider, who has received a suspension from riding bikes.

I'm not a fan of his, but...........errr............perspective anyone........................

+1

For me it shows that cyclings doping controls work when cyclists get the 2 year ban, once they have served their ban they are free to compete. If he dopes again he will be caught and if he doesnt dope and rides clean then fair play to him.

Though I would add that if you get caught a 2nd time I think they should receive a lifeime ban

shaunos

Amazes me how many people get all wound up if life bans are mentioned, but then have a massive downer on any riders winning anything after serving a ban.

Rules is rules, the problem lies with the idiots that run the show, not the riders who get caught and STILL have a way back.

rozzer32

I think everyone deserves a second chance, people make mistakes. People have doped and come back and race clean and do the sport proud e.g. Millar.

OK there are people who just try and cheat all the time e.g Ricco.

I think if you get caught 1st time then 2 year ban, 2nd time 10 year (basically career over) and then (if still stupid enough to dope) 3rd time should be life and not involved in the sport in any way shape or form.

I like Valverde, I will be interested to see what he can do when he is back.

Kléber

It's hard for me to get excited by him, he's still trotting out the "I got banned but never tested positive" line and talks of "injustice" in interviews. Fact his he was nailed after his DNA matched blood bags stored in Fuentes' clinic.

I can accept riders were using the clinic and when caught, pay the price. But to harp on about injustice is big time denial. Worryingly you wonder of he has learned any lessons or if he still thinks it's OK to use stored blood.

The_Special_One

So Valverde is back after serving his ban. wow, so what, big deal.

Some people just need to relax and not get so hung up on the issue.

I have bigger issues to waste my time thinking about like do i have corn flakes or coco pops for breakfast tomorrow.

LeicesterLad

I think the issue some on here have with Valverde is that he is still playing the Victim, if a rider is banned, learns to shut the F*ck up, coms back 2 years later, clean and gets on with the job in hand, then yes, fair play to him. if a rider like Valverde comes back after 2 years still spouting injustice, then, thats a different kettle, anyway, for what its worth, i hope he rides like a sack of sh*t when he comes back, put him in his place a little.

Riders in the Millar Camp = Good. Riders in the Armstrong Camp = bad. (just for you Moray )

StageWinner

He may not have committed war crimes, but in the cycling microcosm I'd still call him a scumbag.

Crankbrother

Is this the same type of scumbag who handheld the current world champ to victory?

Not a big Valverde fan but grow the fuck up people ...

RichN95.

Crankbrother wrote:

Is this the same type of scumbag who handheld the current world champ to victory?

No, it's quite a different kind of scumbag.

dougzz

Still a scumbag for me. That's my perspective.
Why would anyone think he's going to ride clean? To his way of thinking he did nothing wrong, his case was an injustice, right? He didn't test positive so all he needs to do is be more careful about where he stores his blood and the plan continues.

top_bhoy

rozzer32 wrote:

I think everyone deserves a second chance, people make mistakes. People have doped and come back and race clean and do the sport proud e.g. Millar.

OK there are people who just try and cheat all the time e.g Ricco.

I think if you get caught 1st time then 2 year ban, 2nd time 10 year (basically career over) and then (if still stupid enough to dope) 3rd time should be life and not involved in the sport in any way shape or form.

I like Valverde, I will be interested to see what he can do when he is back.

...ex-dopers doing the sport proud...some mistake shurely....haha

You couldn't make it up!!

Doping by and large isn't a mistake, its a concious decision to cheat in the full knowledge it is wrong!!!

frenchfighter

Its always interesting to see if they come back and can still take it to the big boys.

An exciting rider he is for sure.

No_Ta_Doctor

Cogidubnus wrote:

For me it shows that cyclings doping controls work when cyclists get the 2 year ban, once they have served their ban they are free to compete. If he dopes again he will be caught and if he doesnt dope and rides clean then fair play to him.

Though I would add that if you get caught a 2nd time I think they should receive a lifeime ban

Unfortunately, it shows nothing of the sort. Valverde was caught in the investigation into Puerto, not by a doping control. He knows what he was doing and he knows how to get away with it - at least in as far as passing the doping tests.

Moray Gub wrote:

Valverde is just biker rider who cheated and got caught.

Moray Gub wrote:

So what about a football player diving to get a penalty is that in the scumbag category ? or coaches swicthing rugby balls iin contravention of the rules is that in the scumbag category ? be interesting to see where the scumbag line starts and finishes in relation to cheating at sport.

As with all sports, there are degrees of cheating, from the cheeky to the outright perversion of the sport. The handball is cheating, but it's not on the level of match-fixing, which essentially deprives a football match of its essence as a competition.

Doping, in my opinion, comes closer to perversion of the sport than it does to being a bit cheeky. The premiss of cycling as a sport is that it is the tactical deployment of a cyclist's and team's ability, endurance, strategy and pain threshold in pursuit of glory.

Cheeky cheating is catching a bit of a draft from a team car, a minor divergence from your line in a sprint, bending UCI bike/equipment regulations etc. Given what endurance and suffering mean to the sport then EPO and blood-doping are just pissing on what cycling is about. Breaking another cyclist on a climb means nothing if he was clean and you had a hemocrit of 49.999.

That's also where repentance comes in. A caught doper that doesn't fess up, doesn't repent, is essentially showing his arse to what we love about cycling. That's offensive to many of us.

I know you don't see doping in the same way, but that's how I see it, and judging from some of the responses above I think others probably do as well. It's an emotive subject because we perceive unrepentant dopers as disrespecting the sport.

You'll see similar attitudes in many football fans when it comes to, for instance, millionaire benchwarmers that won't move to a club where they'd earn less but play more.

Tusher

"That's also where repentance comes in. A caught doper that doesn't fess up, doesn't repent, is essentially showing his ars* to what we love about cycling. That's offensive to many of us. "


+1

cogidubnus

Are people not allowed a second chance?

No_Ta_Doctor

Cogidubnus wrote:

Are people now allowed a second chance?

According to the rules, yes they are.

But that doesn't mean we have to like them, respect them or think of them as worthy winners if they win something. We're free to hope they don't get a contract, or crash out of races or get injured and have to retire.

Morally, second chances are usually equated with accepting responsibility for your actions, saying sorry and promising not to do it again.

So no, Valverde doesn't have a second chance with me.

Tusher

Yes, but a second chance is an opportunity to do something the right way second time around.
For those coming back from a doping ban, there has to be a degree of transparency, and, as that's never 100% possible, at the very least some verbal acknowledgement of the previous error and the determination to use the second chance not to dope again. Which means accepting responsibility.

andyrac

Tusher wrote:

Yes, but a second chance is an opportunity to do something the right way second time around.
For those coming back from a doping ban, there has to be a degree of transparency, and, as that's never 100% possible, at the very least some verbal acknowledgement of the previous error and the determination to use the second chance not to dope again. Which means accepting responsibility.

I'd go along with that.
I suspect the only thing Valverde is sorry for is the 2 year ban....