Valverde back in a month or so most likely with Movistar ..
Comments
-
AndyRAC wrote:I suspect the only thing Valverde is sorry for is the 2 year ban....
No he's not. He's only sorry for 18 months of that ban. Let's not forget that for the first six months of his ban he was racing and picking up his seven figure salary. Admittedly he was stripped of the Tour of Romandie. How terribly he suffered.Twitter: @RichN950 -
:oops: I stand corrected - as soon as I posted it I knew it wasn't 2 years....All Road/ Gravel: tbcWinter: tbcMTB: tbcRoad: tbc"Look at the time...." "he's fallen like an old lady on a cruise ship..."0
-
RichN95 wrote:AndyRAC wrote:I suspect the only thing Valverde is sorry for is the 2 year ban....
No he's not. He's only sorry for 18 months of that ban. Let's not forget that for the first six months of his ban he was racing and picking up his seven figure salary. Admittedly he was stripped of the Tour of Romandie. How terribly he suffered.
Yes, but after overturning a ban in 2007, appealing one in 2009 and getting the support of the Spanish Cycling Federation (forcing UCI/WADA to appeal to CAS) before finally getting his 2 year ban (backdated 6 months) in May 2010, he surely deserves a second chance, doesn't he?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
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.
To be frank there is an element of sentimental tosh about all this, he doesn't have to verbally acknowledge anything to cycling fans or the cycling community in general. He can come back race and win and still maintain his innocence if he wants ,you may not like it and view him as a scumbag but thats the way it is.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
No tA Doctor wrote: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.
But that doesnt matter becuase he has got a second chance irrespective of whether his morals meet your or anybody elses expectations.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:No tA Doctor wrote: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.
But that doesnt matter becuase he has got a second chance irrespective of whether his morals meet your or anybody elses expectations.
Wow, thanks Moray. I wasn't aware that a cyclist ending a fixed period suspension was allowed to ride again, I thought I got to decide and that the UCI/WADA would check this forum to see what I'd written.
But seeing as our attitudes to Valverde seem to be based on our view of the morality of the case, could you answer a couple of questions for me, so I can be sure of where you stand, morally, on Valverde and doping?
Firstly, I'd like to know if you consider doping to be morally wrong, rather than merely a technical violation of a regulation? If so, how wrong is it - drafting a team car wrong or getting in the team car for a lift over a Col wrong?
Secondly, I'd like to know if you think it's morally wrong for cycling fans to make moral judgements of a cyclist on the grounds of the cyclist's actions with regard to the ethics of the sport (regardless of whether that's a doping issue or not)?
I'm genuinely interested in how you view these issues, this isn't an interrogation, I just think clarification of what we're arguing about would be useful. You're welcome to point to areas where you see shades of grey, rather than black and white, or to highlight important nuances I may have missed.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Moray Gub is DennisN and I claim my £5.0
-
No tA Doctor wrote:Moray Gub wrote:No tA Doctor wrote: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.
But that doesnt matter becuase he has got a second chance irrespective of whether his morals meet your or anybody elses expectations.
Wow, thanks Moray. I wasn't aware that a cyclist ending a fixed period suspension was allowed to ride again, I thought I got to decide and that the UCI/WADA would check this forum to see what I'd written.
But seeing as our attitudes to Valverde seem to be based on our view of the morality of the case, could you answer a couple of questions for me, so I can be sure of where you stand, morally, on Valverde and doping?
Firstly, I'd like to know if you consider doping to be morally wrong, rather than merely a technical violation of a regulation? If so, how wrong is it - drafting a team car wrong or getting in the team car for a lift over a Col wrong?
Secondly, I'd like to know if you think it's morally wrong for cycling fans to make moral judgements of a cyclist on the grounds of the cyclist's actions with regard to the ethics of the sport (regardless of whether that's a doping issue or not)?
I'm genuinely interested in how you view these issues, this isn't an interrogation, I just think clarification of what we're arguing about would be useful. You're welcome to point to areas where you see shades of grey, rather than black and white, or to highlight important nuances I may have missed.
the way some go on in here maybe they think teh UCI shoudl clear it with them first before allowing certain dopers back.
Ok in terms of morals in the wider scheme of things i really don't see cheating at sport as being that big a moral issue. I don't like it and i have no problem with riders getting lengthy bans becuase of it and yes its more of a form of cheating than say hanging onto a team car but at its heart its cheating at sport not murder or rape. Some posters are so far up their own a-holes though that they have as much vitriol for certain dopers as they would with violent criminals and really when it get to that stage its kinda pathetic and a sense of perspective needs to be had.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
StageWinner wrote:Moray Gub is DennisN and I claim my £5.
I am reminded here of a classic quote from Blackadder................"The long winter evenings must just fly by"Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Ah, forget the juice for a moment.
He's a ridiculously smart rider. Rides a bit like Oscar Freire but on hillier terrain and more reliable.
I got the impression from people in the know that by the time he was banned he was reasonably sans juice anyway.
Hopefully he'll be as good as before and Gilbert will have some rivalry.0 -
Moray Gub wrote:the way some go on in here maybe they think teh UCI shoudl clear it with them first before allowing certain dopers back.
Ok in terms of morals in the wider scheme of things i really don't see cheating at sport as being that big a moral issue. I don't like it and i have no problem with riders getting lengthy bans becuase of it and yes its more of a form of cheating than say hanging onto a team car but at its heart its cheating at sport not murder or rape. Some posters are so far up their own a-holes though that they have as much vitriol for certain dopers as they would with violent criminals and really when it get to that stage its kinda pathetic and a sense of perspective needs to be had.
It's a forum about cycling, the comments are going to be cycling related, and that's going to set the broader sense in which they're made. Saying compared to rape or murder is a pointless and ridiculous comparison, as far more eloquently pointed out previously by No ta Doctor.Rick Chasey wrote:Ah, forget the juice for a moment.
He's a ridiculously smart rider. Rides a bit like Oscar Freire but on hillier terrain and more reliable.
I got the impression from people in the know that by the time he was banned he was reasonably sans juice anyway.
Hopefully he'll be as good as before and Gilbert will have some rivalry.
It's hard to forget the juice though Rick, because maybe that smart riding is really strong legs. As for those in the know it's a pity they didn't have more to say about it when he was on the juice. Also, as pointed out many many times before there's been no real study of the longer term benefits of doping, once the doping has stopped. So "he's not doing it any more" doesn't cut it for me. Like Leicester Lad I hope he's crap, and if he's not I'll just assume he's still on the juice anyway, what else can a rider with his attitude to denial expect?0 -
He is entitled to his second chance.
Just as Vino, Millar, Basso et al.
It really is that simple.
Sanctamonious ex-dopers are often more difficult to bear - who's to say they aren't simply spouting what the public want to hear?0 -
pedro118118 wrote:He is entitled to his second chance.
Just as Vino, Millar, Basso et al.
It really is that simple.
Sanctamonious ex-dopers are often more difficult to bear - who's to say they aren't simply spouting what the public want to hear?
This hits the nail on the head for me.
I'd rather a rider come back unrepentant but now rides clean than a rider who comes back saying what he thinks need to be said to appease the cycling community.
Yes doping is bad but they haven't committed murder, give them a second chance and if they dope again then I'll join you in vilifying them.0 -
I'd still rather have a rider come back and say what he thinks needs to be said to appease the public than a rider who comes back and refuses to admit any wrongdoing.0
-
I don't know..
Imagine if Ricco had come out saying he was a changed man and was sorry for doping etc etc. He knows he speaking BS and we know he's speaking BS. I don't see the point of something like that.0 -
Cogidubnus wrote:I don't know..
Imagine if Ricco had come out saying he was a changed man and was sorry for doping etc etc.
Errr - isn't that exactly what he did?0 -
I thought he said he was innocent rather than admitting he had doped and was now repentant. But I probably picked a poor example
0 -
Riders like Valverde are a huge part of the reason why so many sponsors have left cycling and why the sport is now struggling to attract sponsors. People want to see things getting better and, whilst there does seem to be a slow improvement in the culture of the sport, riders coming back from bans saying they've done nothing wrong drags everything back a few years.
No he hasn't committed murder, neither has David Cameron (at least not directly), it doesn't stop him being a scumbag in many people's eyes though.0 -
thegibdog wrote:Riders like Valverde are a huge part of the reason why so many sponsors have left cycling and why the sport is now struggling to attract sponsors. People want to see things getting better and, whilst there does seem to be a slow improvement in the culture of the sport, riders coming back from bans saying they've done nothing wrong drags everything back a few years.
Yeah, the global depression has had little to do with it...it's all those silly dopers.0 -
Dopers, bankers they are all the same lol0
-
Like I said, it's a huge part of the reason, not the entire reason. Sponsors started leaving the sport before the financial crisis with not wanting to be associated with doping being one of the main reasons.Bakunin wrote:
Yeah, the global depression has had little to do with it...it's all those silly dopers.thegibdog wrote:Riders like Valverde are a huge part of the reason why so many sponsors have left cycling and why the sport is now struggling to attract sponsors. People want to see things getting better and, whilst there does seem to be a slow improvement in the culture of the sport, riders coming back from bans saying they've done nothing wrong drags everything back a few years.
Do you genuinely believe that doping doesn't have a negative impact on peoples perception of the sport?0 -
Interesting that now that cycling is 'cleaner' than ever (or the lowest number of doping positives by anyone of note ever), that sponsors are pulling out all over the place!
No doubt to do with the financial climate, etc... but still makes you wonder how much doping was actually 'hurting' the sport.0 -
Of course doping has had a negative impact on perceptions. But equally cycling should be applauded for the work it is doing to combat this, we are now getting clean teams like Garmin-Cervelo, Sky and before them HTC. HTC folded not because of a lack of sponsor but because Bob couldn't patch up his relationship with Cavendish.
I do think doping is bad and a pariah to the support. I don't however want to class every doper as a scumbag. I have spoken to Dwain Chambers about this whole issue and it certainly made me reconsider my views on doping. I was completely anti all dopers until meeting him0 -
Cogidubnus wrote:I have spoken to Dwain Chambers about this whole issue and it certainly made me reconsider my views on doping. I was completely anti all dopers until meeting him
Why? Genuinely interested BTW...http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
[quote="thegibdog"Do you genuinely believe that doping doesn't have a negative impact on peoples perception of the sport?[/quote]
People's perception sure -- but we are taking about putting light on a jersey, the economics of the sport.
I think it is complicated when it comes to the money -- some sponsors got their brand/product out there because of the dope.
Sponsors want bang for their buck. They want the team to be successful. I think that has meant that sponsors look the other way and ride it out when the positives hit.
Do they want to caught up in doping dramas -- of course not.
But the calculus is about what they get for the investment. Think of all those sponsors that stayed the course when doping positives were exploding all around them.
Saxo Bank looked a positive in the face and re-upped.0 -
Cogidubnus wrote:pedro118118 wrote:He is entitled to his second chance.
Just as Vino, Millar, Basso et al.
It really is that simple.
Sanctamonious ex-dopers are often more difficult to bear - who's to say they aren't simply spouting what the public want to hear?
This hits the nail on the head for me.
I'd rather a rider come back unrepentant but now rides clean than a rider who comes back saying what he thinks need to be said to appease the cycling community.
Yes doping is bad but they haven't committed murder, give them a second chance and if they dope again then I'll join you in vilifying them.
Murder again, what is it with an endless comparison with something really incomparable? Yes Mr Magistrate I was was speeding, and I did run a couple of red lights, but it's not Murder is it, so obviously a complete let off, no?
What are the chances that an unrepentant rider comes back clean? If he's done nothing wrong as he sees it, why change? Sure there's the possibility that getting caught has made him think the risk/reward ratio factor has changed and so the smart play is ceasing to dope, but I suspect the personality that dopes in the first place is orientated towards risk.0 -
Oh c'mon, this has been done over and over.
Big drug villain does ban, comes back.
Yeah yeah.
The only interesting thing in that conversation, is the likely performance drop off (or lack of), given that Valvarde, apparently, was pretty clean before he started his ban.
He oozes class, drugs or no drugs, and he can play hide-and-seek better than most.
C'mon, he's a Spaniard who takes both 1 dayers and stage races.
I'd rather him come back and give Gilbert a good run for his money than see Pip walk away with every one day race with a hill in it.0 -
pedro118118 wrote:He is entitled to his second chance.
Just as Vino, Millar, Basso et al.
It really is that simple.
BUT that's not what people are debating - we all bl@@dy well know that he's entitled to come back into the sport! We just don't want him here.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:The only interesting thing in that conversation, is the likely performance drop off (or lack of), given that Valvarde, apparently, was pretty clean before he started his ban.
How could anyone know this? "Apparently" -- what does that mean? Talking to the medics?, reading the passport?, you know someone who told someone, who told someone...
Is this why he maintains that the ban was an injustice? He was "pretty clean" before he was exiled?
Because he is class (which he is) is that all that matters? Gilbert shouldn't win everything?
Given that there are more gifts under my christmas tree on Dec. 25th than on the 24th, apparently there is a Santa Claus.
God, when does the TDU start?0 -
Bakunin wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The only interesting thing in that conversation, is the likely performance drop off (or lack of), given that Valvarde, apparently, was pretty clean before he started his ban.
How could anyone know this? "Apparently" -- what does that mean? Talking to the medics?, reading the passport?, you know someone who told someone, who told someone...
Is this why he maintains that the ban was an injustice? He was "pretty clean" before he was exiled?
Given that there are more gifts under my christmas tree on Dec. 25th than on the 24th, apparently there is a Santa Claus.
God, when does the TDU start?
It was referenced in a few pro-cycling articles if I remember correctly.0
