Tour of Murcia bans Italian teams
This infuriates me, really pathetic and unprofessional move. So because Italy actually takes action against people they have proof doped and Spain sits there and ignores it, you guys will punish them for it?
about 2 years ago
Phil H.
58 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Upside - Plenty of spots for Rock Racing to slide into :-)
"Woof, woof, woof! That's my other dog imitation."
they can bring both their teams!
"Today I was honked at...I caught up and made a great honking noise back...he caught up and said I'm gonna punch you in the face...I laughed."
~DZ
im pretty certain they do
some murcian riders added on wont hurt their chances for inclusion for sure.
by agl on Feb 6, 2010 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
I believe Lance was going to do Murcia
also Menchov and Wiggins are on the early startlist. So the race will still be competitive. Personally I’d like to see the PT teams pull out of Murcia now, making sure they understand this type of behavior isn’t acceptable.
March 14, 2010: The great one returns!
lol
And I’m considering booting Spanish riders off me vds team.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
wow
seems backwards.
Italy will retaliate?
this is yet another (trivial) example of the silliness of nationalism
Moo
Seriously doubt Italy will retaliate
Especially since all the biggest Spanish teams won’t be there anyway. Plus Murcia is the red headed step child to Paris-Nice and Tirreno-Adriatico.
Plus even the Spanish cycling federation...
…is expressing puzzlement and confusion regarding what the logic here could possibly be.
Perhaps they want to show make something good, handreiking, with the Spanish team
"Here the high school level of immaturity will be left to hottitude columns and people like myself." Der Phil. H
Garzelli tends to do it every year.
Maybe this is a fiendish plot to keep past dopers away from the race!
Oh wait…
Absolutely Will, petty nationalism at its finest
I don’t really care about the Tour of Murcia, it’s the bigger picture here that angers me. Instead of fighting like little middle schooler’s these two federations should get together and do what’s best for the sport of cycling. If Italy has proof AV doped then Spain should realize they need to punish their cheater, not just sit around and act as if nothing has happened because AV is winning races for them,
March 14, 2010: The great one returns!
meanwhile, the rest of the civilzed world
finds it hilarious that these two countries have the gall to . . .
wait. I best stop here.
Thank god for Britain, France, and Germany, is all.
I'm struggling
to keep it a consistent picture with Italy & Spain on one side and Britain, France & Germany on the other. You know, when adding Nazis. Whoops.
well, ignoring the fact that you've technically killed the discussion
It’s more of a view of Europe of the last 60 years, and general valuing of principled governance.
Is that what anti-doping is for?
It seems pretty obvious where you stand on these matters, but I would like to step in and say: “if Italy has proof…” is a little off-base, and as well…“Spain should realize they need to punish their cheater” is waaay off base.
Is that what you think the value of anti-doping measures are? Punishment? If so, we’ll never get out of this doping nightmare with any rider.
I do agree that the in-fighting is silly, but you’d be wrong to think it’s just started over the Valverde case.
This point re: punishment is incredibly well taken.
Right now, it’s framed as a moral judgment, in the UCI rules and in the WADA code as well. I, and tedvdw, and others have suggested that this is problematic; and some of the major arguments we’ve had here recently, not to mention the interminable delays involved in even confirming sanctions for some riders, make clear just how unworkable the present regime is.
I have no idea what your last line even means, though.
Yes, punishment
would you like nothing to be done and have them just continue to ride? Exactly what are you proposing here?
March 14, 2010: The great one returns!
Punishment isn't the same as 'penalty' here Phil.
I think the idea is stop trying to make sporting conduct moral conduct, and instead deal with it as a sporting foul. The big advantage in that case, you can deal with it quickly and simply.
Much as you may not agree, I begin to think that baseball has been eminently sane to just say, ok so shit was fucked up for a few years there, we’re not even going to try to sort that out. We’ll just fix it going forward.
Baseball doesn't have an image issue
no matter how many scandals come out the ratings keep on rising. So OK they may have an iamge issue but it isn’t affecting them very much. Baseball also has a pathetic anti-doping system, you don’t want cycling to stoop to that level. I’m quite proud of the sport for being so tough on cheaters and I’d like it to continue, maybe even tougher punishment or penalty if you will(3 years first time caught). Valverde is an awkward issue because the sample is from years ago, if you don’t suspend him then at least take a majority of his results of the last few years away but don’t let him off the hook like many in baseball have been(although at least they won’t get in the HoF). Also I find shooting harmful substances into your body to illegally perform your ability a moral issue as well, maybe riders were forced to do it last generation(again why Valverde is a weird situation) but it won’t fly now.
March 14, 2010: The great one returns!
actually . . . one could argue that baseball has a HUGE image problem
and that steroids was designed to counter THAT image problem.
But we’re not talking about the same image problem exactly.
Mine is the assumption made by most American kids that baseball is boring. Which has led to diminishing tv ratings (not as bad as hockey, but still . . . the fan base for baseball in the u25 crowd is shrinking).
As for penalties: I’ve said for at least two years now: in addition to whatever sanction faced by the rider (which would be lessened for cooperation re: suppliers and systematic practices), sanction the contracting agent for the team. Make someone like Savio or Martinelli (deliberately picking on Italians here . . .) have an interest in determining that their riders are ‘clean’ as opposed to “not in violation.”
Slightly o/t , I just had a huge chuckle about Savio yesterday
I bought the infamous Riccó-covered Procycling issue on doping/cheating. I hadn’t flipped to the last pages until yesterday but when I did i found Savio’s regular column there and there he was smiling and speaking very morally about the need for solid transferrules.
I just can’t help but laugh at the levels of hypocrisy and double standards we have grown to accept in cycling and I must admit to accepting it (to a certain degree) myself for the pure entertainment-value.
Don't be so sure that McGwire, Clemens & Co don't get to the HoF...
…as plenty of cyclists would, stating with Coppi.
As for the morals, you’re really that upset about the terrible risks they take with EPO when simply racing in a peloton is taking a non-negligible risk of death and dismemberment? Really?
Ed I find that quite a silly comment
athletes choose to do the sport they are involved in, they have worked hard throughout their lives to get to the pinnacle of that sport. There is nothing unmoral about that obviously. I’m not upset about the risks they do to themselves, I’m upset at the consequences the sport pays because of those risks. They are knowingly going against the rules, that is what I find unmoral.
March 14, 2010: The great one returns!
Hey Phil
seriously . . .
and I take this VERY seriously because I played h.s. football AND I had a couple of concussions . . . (although most of those didn’t occur in football. Handball can be a very dangerous sport . . .)
what’s an acceptable level of risk? I know of several parents who would prefer that their kids get involved in Mixed Martial Arts than cycling because they see MMA as SAFER—both in training, and in competition—than cycling. And that’s leaving doping out of the equation.
And then consider the almost total lack of reward for all that risk. Lawson Craddock’s a smart kid—great dad, too. It’s not like he’s getting a whole lot of recruiting letters from major colleges (unless you consider Midwestern State, Fort Lewis, or Lees-McRae to be major colleges . . .). Sorry, I seem to have gotten off on a rant, anyway.
Does that level vary with varying levels of the sport? Are you ok with athletes making the trade-off of a few years of fame and possible wealth-acquisition for a ‘back-end’ payout of physical misery and mental disability?
R Mc you raise great questions and points
obviously there are sports out there that have a great injury risk and could lead to long term issues, people who enter these sports need to be educated about those risks. But at the end of the day, if they chose to risk there bodies to compete in them that’s their right in my eyes. I wouldn’t tell a base jumper to not do what gives him joy just because I find it insane and incredibly dangerous. Saying that I of course hope that different sports do what they can to ensure their athletes greater saftey(NFL with their new concussion stance for instance). This is obviously tougher at smaller levels of competition but certain pre-cautions can be put in place at any level. There are millions of people who enter the military because they want to serve their country. Those that go to war have a much greater risk of physical damage or mental trauma then any athlete, but the great thing is that they chose to do so because they want to. I’m not trying to compare the heroic nature and importance of people in the military to athletes, but I see it as a risk that people take because that’s what they want. As in the military maybe there should be a certain age limit for different sports, I would hate to see kids thrown into a situation their bodies aren’t ready for.
March 14, 2010: The great one returns!
Ok, now you've made that clear and that's fine.
The point of my question was to get you to make that distinction. Before, you were using risk as part of your justification for opposing doping.
Next question: so are guys who foul deliberately in basketball immoral? When they do it systematically? The hack-a-shack, for instance?
Well it's strategy within the rule book
Shaq could learn to shoot FT’s better. Is it immoral then to foul when down a few to try to stop the clock and get the other team to miss? I would say absolutely not, it’s a way to win within the rules. You are allowed to foul, you will be punished by the other team getting a chance at FT’s(or building up team fouls), but fouling is not outlawed. Also there is such thing as an intentional foul call, the team then gets 2 Ft’s and the ball, same goes for malicious fouls(flagrant fouls). If the NBA were to step in and say they are allowed to suspend the coach if they felt he ordered fouls intentionally then you wouldn’t be seeing any hack-a-shaq’s, even though it is rare these days anyway.
March 14, 2010: The great one returns!
Both Phil and Ed, I think these two comments are key. I’m not saying that these other instances are correct, but we’ve seen precedent that cycling has “changed” somwhat and a rider, in this case Valverde, may not be today what he was in 2002-2004 (when he rode for Kelme).
So, where is the opportunity for reform – a critical, but necessary aspect of all judicial systems? As is baseball, let bygones be bygones. The rebuttal is statutes I imagine, but in light of the ‘new’ approach teams have and the bio-passport, I think the 8-year statue is not working.
Additionally, we’ve seen precedent for this: With Erik Zabel. IF, the core purpose of anti-doping WAS punishment, then why, when Zabel admitted doping in 2007? Did he race the Tour de France THAT very year? Again, statues.
With testimony. Jesus Manzano is = Frankie Andreau. However, again, with different riders, the outcome or pursuit of punishment is handled drastically differently.
Is moral conduct vs. sporting conduct the bottleneck here?
I think the bottleneck is just that dopers don’t want to be penalized, and they’ll use every possible mechanism to avoid it. And in some cases, unfortunately, they have support (or at any rate a laissez-faire attitude) from teams, cycling organizations and fans who don’t want their heroes sidelined. A Valverde is going to fight a “penalty” just as hard as he’s going to fight a “punishment.”
Cycling will always be a beautiful sport no matter how many people disgrace it.--Christian Vande Velde
Why not say that no one wants to be penalized?
Ever seen someone arguing a foul in basketball, or a penalty in football? The point is that you need a way to resolve those things cleanly and efficiently, not make them drag out for literally years.
If perfect justice is your goal, you’re setting the bar way too high. It should be finding a way to keep things within reasonably functional limits and introduce effective deterrents against things that distort competition excessively or are excessively risky. The key here is having a reasonably effective deterrent to such behavior, and part of having such a deterrent is being able to end arguments in a timely and final manner.
As for giving dopers what they deserve for being such terrible bad people? I’m utterly over it.
I agree, timely and final is good...
But does that mean saying to the dopers, “Screw the technicalities, you’re guilty, here’s your suspension…” or does it mean saying to the anti-doping authorities “Your case isn’t absolutely rock solid and it’s been too long, cease and desist.”?
I’m all for simplifying the system, but not in such a way that the latter sentiment would prevail. The dopers have enough advantages without putting time on their side too.
Cycling will always be a beautiful sport no matter how many people disgrace it.--Christian Vande Velde
Thedoperspeleton has enough advantages without putting time on their side too.
We’re not seriously considering ‘dopers’ as the minority are we? Especially when talking of ‘02-’04…the period when the evidence against Valverde is from.
Doesn't matter.
I really have no idea what percentage of the peloton was doping in ‘02-’04. It’s unknowable. And it shouldn’t affect the treatment of the ones that got caught.
Cycling will always be a beautiful sport no matter how many people disgrace it.--Christian Vande Velde
I tend to agree.
But I also think that when we’re talking multi-year or lifetime bans, it’s basely unjust to do it otherwise than making it very hard and time consuming to convict. That’s part of why I’m suggesting that we’ve created a monster, especially when the chances of accident and getting it wrong are real, especially in the case of some substances. It’s rather like having the death penalty for ambiguous offenses that are difficult to prove.
Sure, of course. The reasons for penalty have to be solid as well. I look at all the support Tom Zirbel is getting right now. The believers he is clean, like with Landis. Maybe they were screwed by their teams, maybe they didn’t know. We don’t know either. What we do know, is they both tested positive in Competition.
If we get to the stage where other federations are banning riders based on a blood bag from Spain, which isn’t illegal in Spain, based on a sample from 6 years ago, based on the idea that Valverde MAY, have used the blood in competition for a competitive advantage, based on what another rider MAY have seen 8 years ago. That’s a whole series of maybes to get it even to the same level of a Zirbel or Landis.
This is compounded by the fact that we have no reasonable ability to think that the peleton wasn’t 100% doped in the period of 2002-2004. Do I personally think Valverde was doping in 02-04, YES, just like every single other rider then. I mean, every single rider.
Now? I have no idea. The cynic in me says “probably”, but I still like to believe that they are clean.
I don’t know if I am proposing anything exactly, because I don’t have a silver-bullet idea. What I do know, is that what is currently in place is far from working, so the system should be re-designed. This Tour of Murcia response only further illustrates that.
Gene Doping
This is the primary reason in my mind that the system has to be changed. If Riis, Manzano, Zabel, Miller can all be doped-to-win and never get caught, what about riders who are gene-doping? Repoxygen has been used for years (2006 olympics was the first rumblings of athletes getting caught) It’s impossible to detect – even a full biopsy can’t certainly implicate an athlete. Other muscle-based gene-doping is even more effective. So then what?
There is too much to win and too little to lose. Armstrong proves this. We can argue to the death whether he’s ever “doped” (blood doped OR genetic) and we’ll get nowhere. We have positives for Salbutomol was it? that he was cleared for via doctors reasons, ex-team testimony, etc, BUT what’s important is not that he was or wasn’t it’s that look what he has gained through cycling! Riders don’t have enough dis-incentive to not dope. Their health isn’t reason enough and this needs to be the focus of anti-doping.
When gene-doping is full swing, we’re not going to punish anyone, cause they won’t get caught, but riders will still be dying, and that’s a shame. Where will this drawn out pursuits against Valverde have gotten us? Nowhere, other than punishing one guy out of the thousands who did the exact same thing.
Most crime in the world is incredibly easy to get away with
Is it your opinion that we shouldn’t have whatever law enforcement that is reasonable to keep crime within some sort of control?
"Most crime in the world is incredibly easy to get away with"
or else we wouldn’t have politicians.
March 14, 2010: The great one returns!
That comment.. Can only be made by an American!
"Here the high school level of immaturity will be left to hottitude columns and people like myself." Der Phil. H
A German and an American
ahem, 1939-1945, you know what I’m sayin’…
March 14, 2010: The great one returns!
No certainly not, but as Daniel Quinn talks about if you have laws that cause you to lose sight of what’s important in the enforcement then it’s just causing the fabric of the enforcement to be compromised.
A classic example is homelessness/busking. This is illegal most areas and the homeless can be arrested for being homeless and busking, but to what effect? Is this a law worth enforcing? Or, do we need to re-think our approach to the so-called “problem”
Just dismissing one enforcement, because others aren’t effective, is as silly as condoning an enforcement that isn’t anywhere close to working, as is the case with anti-doping in cycling, because we have some laws that are effective in society, such as … umm… …
Control is an illusion. When you j-walk across a street, you likely don’t think about it, but I’m sure the last thing on your mind is a ticket.
The approach to anti-doping shouldn’t simple boil down to: those who get away with it succeed and are heroes, and those who don’t are punished and are villains.
I’ve yet to see any indication that any success Alejandro Valverde has achieved can be attributed to doping in the same way as Di Luca, Landis, Sella, Ricco, Zirbil, Hamilton, etc. etc. or any differently than Rasmussen, Zabel, Riis, etc. etc. but yet they are treated the same AND differently.
So , legalization ?
I honestly don’t really understand what you are proposing. (and I’m not trying to be a wiseass)
But the reason Valverde has been "treated differently"
is that both the Spanish Federation & the Spanish authorities failed to investigate Puerto properly & failed to take action. You mention 2002-4, but the problem there was that the Spanish did not deal with it at the point at which they should have. The fact that they failed to do so, & the outcome may well be “unfair” in his case &, in at least two different ways, “unfair” with regard to the other implicated riders (i.e. a) they may have been unfairly implicated but did not have a chance to have their cases properly heard or b) they may have “got away with it”) is no argument against doping controls altogether. So either you are arguing for some kind of statute of limitations, which would encourage even more procrastination (I think one already exists but it’s a much longer period?), or you’re arguing for legalization on the grounds that “everyone was/is doing it, it’s not fair to catch some people & not others”. If you were arguing for an amnesty for that period, I might have some sympathy but…
(& jaywalking isn’t an offence here. But fraud & theft most definitely are.)
This doesn’t apply only to Valverde….this applies to every rider (and athlete) in the Puerto investigation, which was 200 or thereabouts, and 34 cyclsits.
AND, the Spanish did not fail to investigate & fail to take action…Operation Puerto was entirely Spanish led and investigated and was the largest anti-doping operation in history, so check your facts. The fact of the matter was the case was closed in high court in Madrid, and that was over the head of both the Spanish Cycling federation and the Spanish Guardia Civil, and RFEC. Therefore, there was nothing more to do on the case, whether people agree or disagree, the court decided and it was closed.
Only then did CONI decide that they needed to “take matters into their own hands.”
I’m not arguing for legalization, and I don’t have the answers to what a better situation should be. What I do know is that 1. one needs respect the decisions of the Spanish courts, 2. Punishment without due proof of cheating for enhancement in competition is ridiculous (meaning an A and B sample. 3. we need not lose perspective about what is the importance of anti-doping (primarily: protection and health of the atheletes, secondary: the illusion of some sort of ’level playing field"…but it is not to be a pursuit of punishment. 4. I do believe that Amnesty is in order…if riders are all participating in new measures…such as Bio. Passport and team managed anti-doping, then why pursue matters from 6-8 years ago with such fervor, it seems absurd.
(& fraud and theft are illegal, but so is blackmail…ask Jesus Manzano why he was fired, and what he had to do prior to keep his job. I guess Valverde deserves all the blame for those Kelme tactics?)
Hmmm
re: assertion 1: “one needs respect the decisions of the Spanish courts” Why? Puerto was shelved because the court determined that since there was no law against doping in sport at the time that the evidence was gathered, no proceedings could be taken in Spanish courts. That leaves a rather large hole still open for using evidence that might indicate doping in races in a country (say, Italy) where doping WAS illegal at the time the evidence was gathered. The cooperation between Spanish judicial authorities with the Italians (and the foot-dragging and obstruction on the part of other Spanish agencies sends a host of messages).
re assertion 2: BALCO. Marion Jones never tested positive for any in-competition tests. So by your argument . . .
re assertion 3: Fuentes and others would argue that this assertion is what makes a systematic, medically-supervised doping program (such as was run by Saiz and at Telekom) NECESSARY because they believe that such things better protect the health of riders than riding without medical intervention.
It would take a lot of time to puzzle out, but I think the gist of my reasoning revolves around the premise that since sport is a rule-governed enterprise, it ultimately falls into the category of activities that are primarily moral or ethical in scope. (Why? Just ask Daryl Impey or Theo Bos, or all of us who became rather vehement in the discussion of their contre-velo. Were agreed-upon rules of competition NOT fundamental, people would not care that Bos broke one of them. Were there not an ethical dimension to sport, people would not care what Bos’s motivation was.
But I think it plain that PEOPLE do care about the ethical and moral boundaries that we mark out in sport—and that perhaps—in an age where large numbers of people no longer accept the reality of the imposition of external ethical and moral boundaries (hard as this is to imagine in Abilene, TX) upon human conduct, sport provides a sort of lab-experiment in the circumstances and consequences of participating in activities governed by plainly human-made rules of conduct.
re 4: I agree with you on amnesty for riders. Should there be directors who have made careers out of managing doping programs (like Manzano described), those men strike me as akin to operators of sweat-shops . . .
5. (new question): under what sort of business model can professional cycling exist? Is the race the valuable property (the ASO model) or are the teams the valuable property (???), or are the riders the valuable entity?
This is ridiculous and petty
Vindictive behavior against a country’s worth of seemingly innocent cyclists because of some bureaucratic business. In my heart of hearts, I just think the spanish are angry because it seems now they wont be able to pull the charade theyve been pulling for a while anymore.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
![This is funny on so many levels. [Html should open bigger]](http://cdn3.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/239959/flagged_small.jpg)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
