Valverde: I like cycling more than ever

victorponf

Long interview with Valverde in "Desde la Cuneta" nº 6 (free cycling magazine) plus stories about Joaquim Agostinho and Miguel Indurain, Lieje hill profiles and much more...

You can have a look in:

http://issuu.com/chuparuedis/docs/revis ... neta_n_6/1

Or download it, also for free in:

http://www.revistadesdelacuneta.com/ten ... anteriores

Enjoy!

mroli

TBH, I like cycling a little less when unrepenitant dopers come back and win.

victorponf

mroli wrote:

TBH, I like cycling a little less when unrepenitant dopers come back and win.

do you like the magazine?

jerry3571

Valverde doesn't give a monkeys. He's a classy rider but seems to be doing the same as Casagrande; get busted, come back and wins like before. Looks bad!
-jerry

blazing_saddles

mroli wrote:

TBH, I like cycling a little less when unrepenitant dopers come back and win.

jerry3571 wrote:

Valverde doesn't give a monkeys. He's a classy rider but seems to be doing the same as Casagrande; get busted, come back and wins like before. Looks bad!
-jerry

Unrepentant dopers who come back and win=bad, still dirty.
Repentant dopers who come back and lose (or, at least, don't win as often)=good, now clean.
Who needs to test these two groups?
Boot the former group out and give the latter a diplomatic bio passport for test free racing.

Not sure where potential natural ability fits into these neat little boxes.

Or to put it into it's simplest terms.
Winning and not jumping into the confessional is not definitive proof of continued doping.

jerry3571

Some dopers who return seem to return and make a lot less impact. Basso is like the rider he was as Fasso Bortolo, Vino is a lesser/older rider and Millar doesn't win Tour de France stages or world tt champs. Not saying they still dope or not but the results are much less than prior to the doping offence. I'd sat their "excessive" doping seems to have stopped.
Valverde is winning in the exact fashion as before. I guess if the power/watts needed to win is the same as before then Valverde must be under the same regime as before. We'll see as the season progresses. Schumacher is doing ok too.

Jerry

inkyfingers

jerry3571 wrote:

Valverde is winning in the exact fashion as before. I guess if the power/watts needed to win is the same as before then Valverde must be under the same regime as before. We'll see as the season progresses. Schumacher is doing ok too.

Jerry

Outsprinting Simon Gerrans up a small hill and then winning at the Vuelta Andalucia isn't really comparable with winning Leige Bastogne Leige or Fleche Wallone. We'll find out then whether he's really back at the same level.

shinyhelmut

^+1

It's easy to read too much into the first few races of the season. We'll see how well he's really going when we come to the races that the big names are peaking for.

That said I still don't trust him.

dougzz

I hope he loses, but if he wins it'll always have the doubt, so in terms of reputation that's gone forever now. He'll never be a classy rider to me, because I don't know if the 'class' was talent and training, or simply drugs and transfusions.

LeicesterLad

dougzz wrote:

I hope he loses, but if he wins it'll always have the doubt, so in terms of reputation that's gone forever now. He'll never be a classy rider to me, because I don't know if the 'class' was talent and training, or simply drugs and transfusions.

Do you feel that way about Mercx, Simpson, Laurent Fignon et al though? They were never caught, but you still don't know if the 'Class' was class or not? (genuine question by the way)

No_Ta_Doctor

LeicesterLad wrote:

dougzz wrote:

I hope he loses, but if he wins it'll always have the doubt, so in terms of reputation that's gone forever now. He'll never be a classy rider to me, because I don't know if the 'class' was talent and training, or simply drugs and transfusions.

Do you feel that way about Mercx, Simpson, Laurent Fignon et al though? They were never caught, but you still don't know if the 'Class' was class or not? (genuine question by the way)

The advent of Epo/Transfusions is a watershed. There's a before and an after. Doping at that level is a game changer.

Another significant watershed is the Festina affair. At that point it became apparent how serious the problem was. There were two paths: continue as normal and hope it all blew over, or fight for a clean(er) sport.

Riders who chose the former path have helped discredit the sport, I find them difficult to forgive for it, especially if they haven't confessed and repented when caught.

LeicesterLad

No tA Doctor wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

dougzz wrote:

I hope he loses, but if he wins it'll always have the doubt, so in terms of reputation that's gone forever now. He'll never be a classy rider to me, because I don't know if the 'class' was talent and training, or simply drugs and transfusions.

Do you feel that way about Mercx, Simpson, Laurent Fignon et al though? They were never caught, but you still don't know if the 'Class' was class or not? (genuine question by the way)

The advent of Epo/Transfusions is a watershed. There's a before and an after. Doping at that level is a game changer.

Another significant watershed is the Festina affair. At that point it became apparent how serious the problem was. There were two paths: continue as normal and hope it all blew over, or fight for a clean(er) sport.

Riders who chose the former path have helped discredit the sport, I find them difficult to forgive for it, especially if they haven't confessed and repented when caught.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not a Valverde fan, and an unrepentant doper is the worst kind. But I also think we love to slag off the current crop of cheats whilst romanticising about an era of others...

dougzz

LeicesterLad wrote:

Don't get me wrong, i'm not a Valverde fan, and an unrepentant doper is the worst kind. But I also think we love to slag off the current crop of cheats whilst romanticising about an era of others...

You're right, and I think I've repeatedly made the point that Lance is vilified (for I suspect just being better at it than most, although there is the whole bullying/corrupting influence thing) whilst others are looked back on fondly, Indurain, Ullrich and particularly Pantani. But as others have said the doping question really is a before/after EPO thing. Messing with blood changed the game. I suspect that stimulants and the like did create a doped but more or less level playing field, but the blood doping becomes a question of best response to doping, rather than cycling talent.

LeicesterLad

dougzz wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Don't get me wrong, i'm not a Valverde fan, and an unrepentant doper is the worst kind. But I also think we love to slag off the current crop of cheats whilst romanticising about an era of others...

You're right, and I think I've repeatedly made the point that Lance is vilified (for I suspect just being better at it than most, although there is the whole bullying/corrupting influence thing) whilst others are looked back on fondly, Indurain, Ullrich and particularly Pantani. But as others have said the doping question really is a before/after EPO thing. Messing with blood changed the game. I suspect that stimulants and the like did create a doped but more or less level playing field, but the blood doping becomes a question of best response to doping, rather than cycling talent.

I get what you are saying about the level playing field, it appeared different in bygone era's because everybody was doped, the testing was lax etc, but how can we be so sure that the playing field isn't just as level now? Take Contador, if he's been doping for the last 5 years, but only caught recently on something relatively minimul, what is to suggest that the rest of the peloton hasn't been doing the same? I would imagine in the LA era, that a large chunk of the peloton were in some way, shape or form doped, connected to doping, or knew teammates who were doping hence why there havn't been many people willing to speak against LA. Valverde is villified in the media, we all know he's an arrogant arse, but the pro's havnt given the same impression and There hasn't exactly been a condemnation of Contador, infact hardly a bad word has been said against him, even by the likes of Wiggo (tactically to avoid being bullied by the spaniards in the tour, maybe) and other major names even coming out with an (almost) show of support like Canc, even Andy Shleck couldn't raise a smile, in fact he was rather sombre! With Tour and Giro organisers coming out of the woodwork saying how ridiculous it all is we have to wonder weather much has changed in and around the Peloton from the Lance and Pantani years...

No_Ta_Doctor

LeicesterLad wrote:

dougzz wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Don't get me wrong, i'm not a Valverde fan, and an unrepentant doper is the worst kind. But I also think we love to slag off the current crop of cheats whilst romanticising about an era of others...

You're right, and I think I've repeatedly made the point that Lance is vilified (for I suspect just being better at it than most, although there is the whole bullying/corrupting influence thing) whilst others are looked back on fondly, Indurain, Ullrich and particularly Pantani. But as others have said the doping question really is a before/after EPO thing. Messing with blood changed the game. I suspect that stimulants and the like did create a doped but more or less level playing field, but the blood doping becomes a question of best response to doping, rather than cycling talent.

I get what you are saying about the level playing field, it appeared different in bygone era's because everybody was doped, the testing was lax etc, but how can we be so sure that the playing field isn't just as level now? Take Contador, if he's been doping for the last 5 years, but only caught recently on something relatively minimul, what is to suggest that the rest of the peloton hasn't been doing the same? I would imagine in the LA era, that a large chunk of the peloton were in some way, shape or form doped, connected to doping, or knew teammates who were doping hence why there havn't been many people willing to speak against LA. Valverde is villified in the media, we all know he's an arrogant ars*, but the pro's havnt given the same impression and There hasn't exactly been a condemnation of Contador, infact hardly a bad word has been said against him, even by the likes of Wiggo (tactically to avoid being bullied by the spaniards in the tour, maybe) and other major names even coming out with an (almost) show of support like Canc, even Andy Shleck couldn't raise a smile, in fact he was rather sombre! With Tour and Giro organisers coming out of the woodwork saying how ridiculous it all is we have to wonder weather much has changed in and around the Peloton from the Lance and Pantani years...

I'm not sure you did get the point about the level playing field, actually. The point was that in the past doping might have given a rider an edge, but that when the Epo era began the differences in how riders reacted to Epo meant that an average rider could be transformed into a world-beater. In the past we had a level doped playing field because though they were all it it was the rider's ability that made the difference. Give the whole peloton Epo and it's effectively like pickout one or two of them and giving them motorbikes.

As for whether anything has changed, one of the shocking things about the Festina affair was that it was team management that was organising the systematic doping of riders. While that's still possibly going on at some teams we can be fairly sure that there are several teams where it definitely isn't. Any rider at Skly or Garmin, for instance, that was doping would certainly be doing it without the knowledge of his management and in the knowledge that if he was caught he would be instantly dismissed.

Given the recent drop in power outputs and speed up climbs it's likely that anti-doping is at least making the possible gains from doping smaller. That's not to say the peloton is clean, but that a clean rider has a better chance now than he did ten years ago and the incentive to dope is lessened.

The omerta in the peleton is still there, that's for sure, though I think the Contador case isn't a good one on which to judge it. Contador was nailed for what amounts to little more than a technicality. Accidental ingestion through food or supplements has to be a rider's worst nightmare. No-one can prove it was the result of a blood transfusion, no matter how much we believe it, and no rider will condemn Contador for blood doping without hard evidence. Any chance that someone would say something even a little outspoken evaporated as soon as it was clear he would be back racing again later this year. Not that difficult to image a grudge could be born for a measly 6 months.

jerry3571

The racing has got slower due to the Hematocrit testing restricting the amount of blood doping products so riders stopped having Heart Attacks. It's pretty much a health and safety issue rather than a sporting fraud/cheating issue. Riders don't seem to mind risking their lives for a few good results, big pay cheque and being put down in the history books. I personally think the Hematocrit tests have been the main cause for the small time gaps in major Tours as the top level has been capped meaning that all the top guys have near the same blood levels.

I like Valverde with his racing and saw him come up in the Tour of Spain with Kelme with his devastating sprint. Fantastic to watch.
I know people say, well who did Valverde last beat; well Gerrans is a strong rider who possibly may have targeted this smaller event as a race to win. Who would guess Leipheimer and Contador going head to head a few weeks with good form at this time of year.

These days, not a lot makes a lot of sense to be honest. I've been in to cycling since Stephen Roche was winning big style but I am generally very confused most of the time these days. :S

Jerry

No_Ta_Doctor

jerry3571 wrote:

The racing has got slower due to the Hematocrit testing restricting the amount of blood doping products so riders stopped having Heart Attacks. It's pretty much a health and safety issue rather than a sporting fraud/cheating issue. Riders don't seem to mind risking their lives for a few good results, big pay cheque and being put down in the history books. I personally think the Hematocrit tests have been the main cause for the small time gaps in major Tours as the top level has been capped meaning that all the top guys have near the same blood levels.

The hematocrit tests and the 50% rule were introduced in 1997, Paris-Nice. The slowdown in racing has only really occurred the last couple of seasons, since the bio passport was introduced.

takethehighroad

No tA Doctor wrote:

The hematocrit tests and the 50% rule were introduced in 1997, Paris-Nice. The slowdown in racing has only really occurred the last couple of seasons, since the bio passport was introduced.

But how often was it overlooked? Agree it has improved with the bio passport, Pellizotti remaining banned was a good result

frenchfighter

LeicesterLad wrote:

Valverde is villified in the media, we all know he's an arrogant ars*, but the pro's havnt given the same impression

That's Evans.



Big here:
http://www.alejandrovalverde.es/fotos_f ... px?frmid=9

dave_1

what ex-riders were saying was that 80s style non-EPO doping still wouldn't stop the best talent from winning as it was peashooter like doping substances whereas the doping inclined persons who switched to EPO were upgrading to a ballistic missile so to speak. So talented riders faded away fast around 1990-1994 unless they used EPO.

Hampsten and Chiapucci demonstrate the effect of EPO use by Chiapucci-failed haemocrit tests at Giro. Same age approx..Hampsten showed talent 5 years before Chiapucci but couldn't hold a candle to Chiapucci by 1990 who appeared out of nowhere, no advance warning of how good he would be

RichN95.

Booooo!!!!!

We need a villan. Ricoo, Rasmussen, DinLuca, Contador are unavilable, So Alejandro will be the next. Some will celebrate how he is an attacking winning rider. Those some are exceptionally stupid,.

andrewjoseph

frenchfighter wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Valverde is villified in the media, we all know he's an arrogant ars*, but the pro's havnt given the same impression

That's Evans.



Big here:
http://www.alejandrovalverde.es/fotos_f ... px?frmid=9

Yes, and he looks less than pleased. probably scraped the skin off his arms when he got back and burnt the jersey.

I must say, I'm a bit disappointed that Evans even allowed Valverde to get close to him.

frenchfighter

Garry H

frenchfighter wrote:

Either his head has shrunk, or he's had one of those hair "transplant" jobbies, just like Rooney.

rick_chasey

Garry H wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Either his head has shrunk, or he's had one of those hair "transplant" jobbies, just like Rooney.

Or he's stopped taking so much testosterone.

frenchfighter

"I knew I had good shape as I had trained well at home, but I didn't think I would be able to do such a good season start. But during the suspension, I did exactly what I did before. I trained regularly, and I had two peaks of form during the year. I trained as though I was competing, but without competing."

"To me, Gilbert was the best rider in the world last year," the Spaniard continued. "I would love to be able to deliver a grand duel against him in the Ardennes Classics. I'm sure this would also be great for the spectators."

"My idea is to fight for the general classification," said the 31-year-old, who already has two top ten results in the Tour to his name (in 2007 and 2008). "It's clear that the amount of time trial kilometres favours those riders who are specialists against the clock, like Wiggins or Evans. But the Tour is the Tour, it is very long and anything can happen, it can be over at any day. So I will do my utmost to be there, to do the best I can, even if, to me, the favourite is Andy Schleck.

"He wants to win it, but so do I. In the time trial, we are about on the same level. I think the Tour 2012 will be very open."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverd ... -de-france

andyp

One wonders what drugs he's on now to come out with those final two paragraphs. They are distorting reality, thats for sure.