Valverde back in a month or so most likely with Movistar ..
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote: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.
OK -- fair enough. :oops:
What happened to those in the "know?"
I apologize if I sound like that Dennis guy from Ohio.
Student's exams were horrible.0 -
Contador is the Greatest0 -
I always thought he looked clean for a season or two post-Puerto, when there was a consistent drop off in his form. He then started winning left right and centre again and I became suspicious, especially as it coincided with the investigations against him. Gut feeling is that he saw others in the peloton (compatriots?) getting away with it and decided to get back on the juice. Much as I find him an exciting rider to watch, it counts for nothing if he's cheating so I'd rather he wasn't there, and I'd certainly rather see Pip win every race with a hill at the end than see him deprived of those wins by a cheat (or at best an unrepentant ex-cheat).0
-
keef_zip wrote: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.
You may not want him here, but many others are satisfied that he is entitled to another chance - just look at the mixed view within this thread. Depends on your attitude to doping - whether you consider it a crime worthy of zero tolerance. If so, fine, I respect that, but I, personally, do not.
As for doping being to blame for sponsor apathy in cycling, I don't buy it, necessarily. It is the scandal caused by dopers being caught that puts big corporates off. Such corporates were happy to participate whilst no riders were being caught. I agree with Vaughters to an extent, the business model for running professional cycling teams is fundementally flawed.0 -
pedro118118 wrote:keef_zip wrote: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.
You may not want him here, but many others are satisfied that he is entitled to another chance - just look at the mixed view within this thread. Depends on your attitude to doping - whether you consider it a crime worthy of zero tolerance. If so, fine, I respect that, but I, personally, do not.
As for doping being to blame for sponsor apathy in cycling, I don't buy it, necessarily. It is the scandal caused by dopers being caught that puts big corporates off. Such corporates were happy to participate whilst no riders were being caught. I agree with Vaughters to an extent, the business model for running professional cycling teams is fundementally flawed.
O M G - have you even read what people have said above.
It's not about whether "he is entitled to another chance". People don't want him back because he's not even admitted that he did anything wrong. That is why. If he admitted he'd erred then I would say fair play, give him another chance, but he hasn't.0 -
keef_zip wrote:pedro118118 wrote:keef_zip wrote: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.
You may not want him here, but many others are satisfied that he is entitled to another chance - just look at the mixed view within this thread. Depends on your attitude to doping - whether you consider it a crime worthy of zero tolerance. If so, fine, I respect that, but I, personally, do not.
As for doping being to blame for sponsor apathy in cycling, I don't buy it, necessarily. It is the scandal caused by dopers being caught that puts big corporates off. Such corporates were happy to participate whilst no riders were being caught. I agree with Vaughters to an extent, the business model for running professional cycling teams is fundementally flawed.
O M G - have you even read what people have said above.
It's not about whether "he is entitled to another chance". People don't want him back because he's not even admitted that he did anything wrong. That is why. If he admitted he'd erred then I would say fair play, give him another chance, but he hasn't.
The O.M.G you posted above could easily apply you
Pedro has already told you that not everybody thinks like you but you seem incapable of taking that in.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:keef_zip wrote:pedro118118 wrote:keef_zip wrote: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.
You may not want him here, but many others are satisfied that he is entitled to another chance - just look at the mixed view within this thread. Depends on your attitude to doping - whether you consider it a crime worthy of zero tolerance. If so, fine, I respect that, but I, personally, do not.
As for doping being to blame for sponsor apathy in cycling, I don't buy it, necessarily. It is the scandal caused by dopers being caught that puts big corporates off. Such corporates were happy to participate whilst no riders were being caught. I agree with Vaughters to an extent, the business model for running professional cycling teams is fundementally flawed.
O M G - have you even read what people have said above.
It's not about whether "he is entitled to another chance". People don't want him back because he's not even admitted that he did anything wrong. That is why. If he admitted he'd erred then I would say fair play, give him another chance, but he hasn't.
The O.M.G you posted above could easily apply you
Pedro has already told you that not everybody thinks like you but you seem incapable of taking that in.
I appreciate that not everyone agrees with me. I was simply trying to clarify what I meant, as it seemed as though Pedro (and you) couldn't distinguish between "he deserves a second chance because the rules say so" and "he doesn't deserve a second chance IMO because he's not admitted he did anything wrong".
Those that admit what they did something wrong get my respect. Those that don't get none. It's not about whether he's entitled to come back, as I've said many a time before.0 -
With all due respect, whilst I often disagree MG's views, they are well argued, and cause me on occasion to question mine.Moray Gub wrote: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"
Dennis on the other hand argued like the class bully in the last year of primary school, and became so tiresome that I skipped over his posts. One of the added benefits of LA finally retiring is that dennis has largely absented himself.Dan0 -
keef_zip wrote:Moray Gub wrote:keef_zip wrote:pedro118118 wrote:keef_zip wrote: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.
You may not want him here, but many others are satisfied that he is entitled to another chance - just look at the mixed view within this thread. Depends on your attitude to doping - whether you consider it a crime worthy of zero tolerance. If so, fine, I respect that, but I, personally, do not.
As for doping being to blame for sponsor apathy in cycling, I don't buy it, necessarily. It is the scandal caused by dopers being caught that puts big corporates off. Such corporates were happy to participate whilst no riders were being caught. I agree with Vaughters to an extent, the business model for running professional cycling teams is fundementally flawed.
O M G - have you even read what people have said above.
It's not about whether "he is entitled to another chance". People don't want him back because he's not even admitted that he did anything wrong. That is why. If he admitted he'd erred then I would say fair play, give him another chance, but he hasn't.
The O.M.G you posted above could easily apply you
Pedro has already told you that not everybody thinks like you but you seem incapable of taking that in.
I appreciate that not everyone agrees with me. I was simply trying to clarify what I meant, as it seemed as though Pedro (and you) couldn't distinguish between "he deserves a second chance because the rules say so" and "he doesn't deserve a second chance IMO because he's not admitted he did anything wrong".
Those that admit what they did something wrong get my respect. Those that don't get none. It's not about whether he's entitled to come back, as I've said many a time before.
I appreciate all that, but what is the point of forced apologies and crocodile tears? If contrition becomes a pre-condition of returning to competition following a ban, then riders will simply spout a standard lawyer-drafted statement, yet not buy into a word of it. So long as comeback riders learn the lesson, stop cheaing and move on then that should be enough. Many riders will feel aggreived (AV included) that they are the ones banned, whilst others have got away with it. And continue to do so in some cases. That is the sense of injustice/resentment - clearly a deep-rooted cultural thing. I still don't subsribe to the view that this makes AV (or any other cycling cheat) a "scumbag". It's always more compicated than that.0 -
pedro118118 wrote:I appreciate all that, but what is the point of forced apologies and crocodile tears? If contrition becomes a pre-condition of returning to competition following a ban, then riders will simply spout a standard lawyer-drafted statement, yet not buy into a word of it. So long as comeback riders learn the lesson, stop cheaing and move on then that should be enough. Many riders will feel aggreived (AV included) that they are the ones banned, whilst others have got away with it. And continue to do so in some cases. That is the sense of injustice/resentment - clearly a deep-rooted cultural thing. I still don't subsribe to the view that this makes AV (or any other cycling cheat) a "scumbag". It's always more compicated than that.
Interestingly I think this cuts to the point with why I detest AV. The point is that he did get away with it, and that's what I suspect motivates his 'innocence' crap, a little like Bertie. AV thinks that the blood bag in Fuentes fridge and an Italian DNA test is a back handed way for him to be caught, he never tested positive, he beat the system. I'm sure he feels because of this he's been harshly treated. But because you can't catch every cheat, it doesn't mean the ones that do get caught are getting a rough deal.
For me the AV thing is clear, he got caught in an unusual way, something he couldn't really control, and then didn't man up, he played the poor down trodden victim, hence my view that he's a scumbag.
Why do you describe it as a deep rooted cultural thing? Are you saying the Spanish consider themselves victims of doping?0 -
pedro118118 wrote:
I appreciate all that, but what is the point of forced apologies and crocodile tears? If contrition becomes a pre-condition of returning to competition following a ban, then riders will simply spout a standard lawyer-drafted statement, yet not buy into a word of it. So long as comeback riders learn the lesson, stop cheaing and move on then that should be enough. Many riders will feel aggreived (AV included) that they are the ones banned, whilst others have got away with it. And continue to do so in some cases. That is the sense of injustice/resentment - clearly a deep-rooted cultural thing. I still don't subsribe to the view that this makes AV (or any other cycling cheat) a "scumbag". It's always more compicated than that.
+1
Bang on the money with that.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
dougzz wrote:pedro118118 wrote:I appreciate all that, but what is the point of forced apologies and crocodile tears? If contrition becomes a pre-condition of returning to competition following a ban, then riders will simply spout a standard lawyer-drafted statement, yet not buy into a word of it. So long as comeback riders learn the lesson, stop cheaing and move on then that should be enough. Many riders will feel aggreived (AV included) that they are the ones banned, whilst others have got away with it. And continue to do so in some cases. That is the sense of injustice/resentment - clearly a deep-rooted cultural thing. I still don't subsribe to the view that this makes AV (or any other cycling cheat) a "scumbag". It's always more compicated than that.
Interestingly I think this cuts to the point with why I detest AV. The point is that he did get away with it, and that's what I suspect motivates his 'innocence' crap, a little like Bertie. AV thinks that the blood bag in Fuentes fridge and an Italian DNA test is a back handed way for him to be caught, he never tested positive, he beat the system. I'm sure he feels because of this he's been harshly treated. But because you can't catch every cheat, it doesn't mean the ones that do get caught are getting a rough deal.
For me the AV thing is clear, he got caught in an unusual way, something he couldn't really control, and then didn't man up, he played the poor down trodden victim, hence my view that he's a scumbag.
Why do you describe it as a deep rooted cultural thing? Are you saying the Spanish consider themselves victims of doping?
But he didn't get it away though did he didnt beat the system he copped a two year ban. He is back and he doesnt need to show crocodile tears to appease anybody to allow gim to race. Thats enough for me he has done his time now lets see him race. As for scumbags for me personally i reserve the word for real scumbags not some guy who cheated to win bike races.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:But he didn't get it away though did he didnt beat the system he copped a two year ban. He is back and he doesnt need to show crocodile tears to appease anybody to allow gim to race. Thats enough for me he has done his time now lets see him race. As for scumbags for me personally i reserve the word for real scumbags not some guy who cheated to win bike races.
So we disagree. Let's get our own thread and turn it into a pantomime.
Oh yes we will........0 -
Moray Gub wrote:As for scumbags for me personally i reserve the word for real scumbags not some guy who cheated to win bike races.
If I was trying to feed my family as a pro cyclist and competing clean I might well consider AV et al scumbags.
I wonder what Dan Martin thinks of him, after all a win in the Volta a Catalonia would look pretty good on his CV.0
