Valverde's appeal dismissed, UCI moves to make ban worldwide
by TheFigurehead on Mar 16, 2010 11:45 AM EDT
551 comments
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed the appeal filed by the Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde against the decision of the National Olympic Committee of Italy (CONI) suspending him for two years from all sports events organized on Italian soil. As a consequence, the suspension remains in force until 10 May 2011.
PDF-version of the press release. There will be a hearing later this week on WADA and UCI vs Valverde and the Spanish federation.
Update: CN - Valverde disputes CAS decision on his Italian ban
In a statement, the partiality of one of the CAS arbiters was questioned, as was the right to use evidence collected during the Operación Puerto blood doping investigation. It was also claimed that the decision had violated Valverde's basic human rights.
Update: UCI determined to extend ban worldwide
The UCI has noted the ruling issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on the appeal of Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde against the decision of the Italian National Anti-doping Tribunal to suspend him from all sports events organised in Italy for a two-year period beginning in May 2009, for having breached the anti-doping rules in the context of “Operation Puerto”.
The UCI welcomes the decision of the CAS, which confirms the conclusions the UCI reached after conducting a thorough review of the documents relating to the Puerto case, and of Alejandro Valverde’s involvement in it.
Consequently, after careful study of the grounds of the CAS decision, the UCI expresses its determination to take the necessary measures to secure a suspension that is applicable internationally.
0 recs |
551 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Yay! Now if only they ban him worldwide.
(Unrelated: I like the font they used on the press release)
"Awesome! is more about what gets fans excited than what’s harder to do." - Chris...
that explains a lot.
"Awesome! is more about what gets fans excited than what’s harder to do." - Chris...
This is what makes the PdC great
Who else is on the font story? Who???
"The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is." Edvald Boasson Hagen
Isn't it just Times?
The body text, I mean. And I don’t mean Times New Roman, that’s a little lighter, I think. The grey title I definitely recognise, with slanted serif on the T, and it’s a fairly mainstream font, but can’t remember its name right now.
Yup, it's Times (non-"New Roman")
Times-Italic and Times-Roman. That at least is the body text. (Turning it into a .pdf makes it appear slightly more bold than one would see in a word processing program.)
Meanwhile, the header font remains elusive. The embedded fonts are called “TTE28C9720t00” and “TTE29CA700t00”. I have no idea what the street name is for these fonts.
At least it’s not Arial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwuFCBwVYFw
A subversively casual little typeface
Light and solid, but look at those beaks on the “T” and the “Z”… all slanted and lazy looking. Like a banker hiding full-sleeve tattoos under his three-piece suit…
We have garamond labels in the gallery at the minute.
Never again. You need the text to be like 20 pts or more to make them properly legible. Huge labels. Nice font though, which is why we went with it. Just really wrong use. Serif fonts in general are difficult though, despite the truism that they’re actually more legible.
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
garamond is cool. i love galliard
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
or goudy old style
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
Oh I like this very much.
I might have to start using this. I have it lying around someplace.
But in a dense text, it's easier to read...
although it’s aesthetically less pleasing.
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
Ha!
I can’t decide whether this beats the Herring or not.
I do like me some Garamond, though. Use it quite often as my screen font.
I think we posted exactly at the same moment
Yes Garamond is a fav of mine too. At first I thought it was Stone Informal, but nope….
I expect the UCI has just been waiting to make sure the Italian ban held before extending it.
Not sure if they’ll also wait until after the next CAS hearing, where they and WADA take the Spanish fed to task for not moving against Valverde themselves. Next week, isn’t it?
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Yep , next week.
Seems like the worldwide ban should come out in a day or two though. Valverde’s 2nd at P-N is his swan song. But I have a weird question. So Valverde’s Italian ban started last year so it only has a year to run-till next May. Does that mean he would get to ride in Italy and no where else after May of 2011?
...and the italian races would all start in Monacco or cross border to get around that...
by JustJoshinYa on Mar 16, 2010 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
The other possibility is to extend the ban retroactively
and take away all his results since last May.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Given his enthusiasm for lawyering up
and the fact that he probably earned in the last couple of years around ten times what Floyd spent on his lawyers I don’t expect the UCI to do any more than what the book allows them to. Which probably means that all they can do is extend the Italian ban worldwide until next May. The nearest equivalent I can think of is the Bubnenkova case which (as CQ so nicely puts it):
Svetlana Bubnenkova tested positive for the use of EPO in the Tour de Limousin 2006. In June 2007 she was suspended for 2 years by the AFLD (Agence Française de Lutte contre le Dopage). Later the UCI adopted this suspension. Because of a miscommunication Bubnenkova continued to race in 2007. At the end of 2007 the UCI disqualified Bubnenkova in all races she started between June and September 2007.
But as there is no handy “miscommunication” here there are probably no grounds for backdating it and stripping his results for the past year. Piti.
There are other precedents for stripping results retroactively.
I have to leave now, but I can dig one up for you later if you like. The case that comes to mind might be Australian?
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Hilton McMurdo
His positive for steroid use dated to May 2007, but he competed until that November. Not only were his results between May and November wiped, but the suspension was dated from the last date of competition, so he wasn’t eligible to return until November 2009.
But I don’t think the UCI was involved in this one—it was the Australian federation that stripped the results. Link.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Italy is included in the world isn't it?
you never know with those Italians, they may be martians.
Proud member of Thuggetz nation.
This week
According to another press release from today, it’s 18-21 March.
Staring at the swim team gets you killed by a gang of dancing ninja men who know how to twirl.
by TheFigurehead on Mar 16, 2010 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but I'm lazy.
It was much easier to ask the question and wait .02 seconds for an answer.
"Woof, woof, woof! That's my other dog imitation."
must be exhausting
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
You can see where this goes
He fixes the cable?
"The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is." Edvald Boasson Hagen
Bah Chrome.
It forgets to refresh itself all the time.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Yup. That's why I switched.
Still looking for the perfect browser…
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Sad
I know I’m probably in the minority here but I for one had hoped to see Valverde ride the Tour later this year. :(
Blame the spanish federation
If they had just gone after him in time, he would have served his ban by now.
At this point I won’t believe he is banned worldwide until I see it.
I think the UCI is going to need six to nine months to figure out what to do...
…about the absurd position it’s got itself into now.
They don’t think fast at the UCI.
i think he means
the italy and world bans not being concurrent.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
It's the Spanish Federation
as Jens rightly says, that’s got us here. I’m not all that sure, for once, what the UCI could have done?
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
Exactly. If they had extended CONI's ban and Valverde's appeal had been successful, that would be the absurd position.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Even if hes not banned by the time of the Tour
using the theory that they’ll need time to sort this out, the chances of him riding the Tour are pretty much gone now.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
…to inquire into Puerto.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
+1
'When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning' - Dr. Reiner Knizia
by bought with blood on Mar 16, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
so, do people think this will be the last puerto ban?
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
CONI got other samples from the blood bags
and their jurisdiction over cyclists from other federations has now been established. Not impossible they have others in the works—I think there have been rumors to that effect, anyway.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
All forty-odd of them
will we start to see lots of spontaneous confessions?
Confessions?
I bet not. Given the possible riders involved, I’m guessing expensive lawyers will be the order of the day.
that's the way i'm leaning too
the fun never stops. i just hope it does not take too much time/resources away from current anti doping efforts.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Ha!
The fun never stops. That Torri is a fun-loving dude.
Yeah, I think they’ve got more of these things in the works. I’m curious to see who’s next, really.
no, im looking for some more
thats me being wishful, even if some of my fav riders may get caught by the truth police, ill be happy if they purge that cases contents in any way shape or form thats even just barely legal.
Perhaps a stupid question, but...
…didn’t Valverde argue that the Italians had no jurisdiction over him? He didn’t argue that it wasn’t his blood, right?
more or less, from what i understand
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Once the DNA match was established, he didn't deny it was his blood.
Although he (a) claimed it was leftover from when Fuentes’ sister was his team doctor (why she would have extracted a whole bag of blood was left unexplained), and (b) expressed puzzlement at how the EPO could have gotten into it.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
OK, thanks all...
So, he cheated, and bitches about who caught him – but bottom line is he was caught.
I think he should get a lifetime ban to send a message. Since the rules are being written while this is moving forward…the excuse itself is worthy of punishment.
by JustJoshinYa on Mar 16, 2010 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
hmmm
Thing is (& this is devil’s advocate stuff), finding EPO in a bag of someone’s blood isn’t altogether the same as finding EPO in someone’s blood. At the very most, it – with other evidence – might be taken as “intention to dope” a la Basso. At least, if I were his lawyer that’s what I’d argue.
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
Either way, it's a 2-year ban.
No grounds for a lifetime ban under the current rules—and they can’t be rewritten to apply retroactively.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
yeah, I know...
…speaking emotionally about a lifetime. It’s tiring to hear of this behavior and more tiring to think how long it takes to find out the “truthe” which we will really likely only REALLY know when they come clean as a DS sometime 20 years further on as they coach the next generation of “transparent and clean competitors”…cough, cough.
by JustJoshinYa on Mar 16, 2010 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
So many riders from that period are probably bannable
You have riders like Frank Schleck who was known to have deposited money in bank accounts linked to Fuentes, yet despite that glaring piece of circumstantial evidence very little effort was made by any of the federations to investigate the matter.
So far, I don't think any federation has ever moved on a case where there was no direct physical evidence.
As in, positive test or blood match. Documents, bank transfers, even video evidence—to the best of my knowledge, none of that has been sufficient for a ban. If anyone knows of a case, I’m interested .
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Pretty certain you're correct there
The Scarponi case is the only one where I don’t recall the details of the evidence, but I’m fairly certain they had a blood bag for zapatero. Birillo, they certainly did.
They had some ridiculous number of samples from the evidence in Madrid. The Italians, I mean. So the list of possible cases could be quite lenghty, depending on how much in the way of resources the Italians want to devote to chasing this thing.
I think the Lux did what they could
and held hearings but without physical evidence beyond the bankdeposits there was little they could do. If the spanish had released the blood they could try and match. It might still happen. As majope says ,Coni has more samples than Piti’s and might now go ahead with those cases?
I'd agree with that one.
I don’t think there was too much they could do in the Schleck case as it stood then. The Italians may have something different to say about this, of course.
And of course a DNA matched blood bag
would give rise to all sorts of perjury related charges, after all didn’t he say that he’d had no contact at all apart from sending money for “training plans”
I'm very sorry...I'm going to through this out there...
‘witch hunt’
BAH!!!!....Cavendish?! Double BAH!!! Sky!!
TLP 7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent
"Witch hunt" implies...
The persecution of people who are not guilty. So I don’t think it applies here.
Cycling will always be a beautiful sport no matter how many people disgrace it.--Christian Vande Velde
Can't we just offer amnesty to anyone who doped prior to 2008? (pre-passport)
Certainly wouldn’t be a fair resolution in the eyes of people who served time like Basso and Rasmussen but that entire period is tainted, the problem was systemic, so catching a few prominent riders and making an example of them hardly seems fair. Think of how many riders probably got off scott free.
That should have been done back then.
Now is too late and there won’t be that many more cases like this in cycling for pre 2008 stuff.
There aren’t that many old samples.
I'd say yes with a restriction:
amnesty if you describe your support system.
and as ted argues elsewhere: ban any ds or manager with more than 3 riders testing positive in a 2 year period.
Otherwise, lifetime bans for riders AND their ds’s.
Further . . . it would be helpful to have some precise legal clarification about the nature of participation in sport: is this activity to be held as precisely equal to other sorts of vocational activity, or does it differ in ways that make EU employment laws not precisely applicable?
Still further: The riders need a REAL union. As it stands now, most are ‘disposable heroes.’
Yet still further: testing protocols must be standardised.
Agree fully with all of this...
…except the lifetime bans thing. I’m generally opposed to them—especially since they bring us back to this great big judicial mess that costs insane amounts of money, delays things forever, and generally distorts everything in ways the Valverde case has to be emblematic of by now.
I think quickly applied sporting penalties for any positive control is the way to go. You dope, you get caught according to the standard protocols, you get relegated, lose your prize money, and get egg on your face. Plus we’ll test you more, and make your life an unutterable pain in the ass. Oh, and this applies to your whole team. Sure, you can keep doing it, but the diminishing returns + probable loss of sponsorship / loss of riders who don’t want to deal with the bs will make it very unpleasant very fast. Bad coaches won’t last in a system like this because they won’t be able to produce successful results or put new riders in a position to succeed. Further, none of this requires a big ‘court case’ every time something happens. None of it requires life bans. And if you do it right, you’ll get the riders and the coaches policing one another’s behavior, rather than trying to protect one another. Also, you can do this to at least some real extent at the lower levels.
I do really agree that digging out the support systems, especially since many of them infect the junior level and above, is critical. Further, none of this obviates applicable criminal law where the substances in question are not just the objects of sporting bans, but also the objects of medical restrictions / applicable drug laws. In those cases, you refer it to the police / medical authorities and send the dealers and the physicians practicing outside of the rules of their profession right down the river where they belong. But that’s a separate issue and one that should never be in the hands of a sporting federation anyhow.
What makes you think there won't be a big court case when the winner of the TdF is relegated?
That’s my main problem , I don’t see why the process would be more swift? You will still have the same challenging of the results and the appeals won’t you?
Do you in say, football, when penalties are applied?
Not really. Sometimes they say sorry we got it wrong, but that’s how it seemed. You don’t get it when relegations happen now for say, irregular sprinting.
I think if the penalty applies purely to this competition, it takes some of the wind out of things. But you may have a point that the analogy isn’t there.
Oh, god
We’re all so bunkered down, even in 2010, waiting for the Tour to go up in flames..
Is Sagan too old to go through that youth testing that Lemond wants? Has he been recently seen in Meixco or Kona?
Hamilton and Valverde f’-in both stole Liege.
by rubesANdbabes on Mar 16, 2010 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
that's why the part about employment law is crucial
if sport in some way differs from other sorts of financially-compensated activities, then the lifetime ban isn’t so big a deal.
It would be a lifetime ban from being a professional cyclist, ds, or manager. If, as is currently the case, Raimundas Rumsas wants to harvest euros from the Italian gran fondo circuit, or if zombie-VDB wants to kick butt on the kermesse circuit, or if Kayle Leogrande wants to come back as an amateur and crash every year in the last lap of the elite w/o contract Downer’s Grove—whatever.
But the prospect of lifetime bans—instead of two year ‘time-outs’—might have a way of providing just the disincentive you want. And note, this would be primarily an economic, not moral sanction.
The problem is that I don't think it is different.
Which is part of why I’m really resistant to life bans. I also think college athletes at big-time university programs should get paid. If the university is making a substantial profit on your labor, you should be compensated. And I don’t think ‘free education’ covers it, especially since the sports often get in the way of the education to a very considerable degree (and I say this as a university prof.).
On a positive note (no pun intended and in reference to the above comments regardiing 'infection of juniors'
Our last two races, which were also the first two of the year…the 1,2,4,and 8 placed juniors were tested by the AFLD…
There has been suggestions in the past that ‘doping’ of some sort is endemic in the upper junior European levels….
I could try to dig out the reference, if memory serves it was in VeloMagazine (French)
BAH!!!!....Cavendish?! Double BAH!!! Sky!!
TLP 7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent
good thing, if they [AFLD] keep up through the season....
otherwise why bother…
BAH!!!!....Cavendish?! Double BAH!!! Sky!!
TLP 7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent
by bradBordeaux on Mar 16, 2010 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Very good thing...
…if this isn’t stopped at the junior level, where often the athletes have no idea what they’re being given, then the problem will persist everywhere else.
Valverde is appealling to the Swiss Federal Court
“1. We considered that one of the judges was not impartial, having worked for the World Anti-Doping Agency. The partiality of this judge is being analyzed by Switzerland’s Federal Tribunal, which is due to make a decision in this respect.
“If the Swiss Federal Tribunal considers this judge is partial, today’s CAS decision will be meaningless. The impartiality of the judges if a necessary condition for a fair hearing.
“2. (CAS) does not have the authority to consider a decision of the Spanish judicial system to be illegal.”
“3. The decision by (CAS) clearly breaches the fundamental rights of the racer, above all the right to a fair hearing and the right to privacy.
“The lack of impartiality of this panel of judges and the clear breaches of fundamental rights have provoked us to not accept this decision and as a result we will proceed to place an appeal with the Swiss Federal Court/Tribunal.”
(From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/16/AR2010031601745.html )
ah . . . the tyler hamilton playbook
Anyone wanna go in on some “Have pity for piti” t-shirts with me?
not a bad idea
i got $10 on that.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
har!
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
oh the old privacy
favourite of tennis players & footballers, who don’t want to give their whereabouts to the anti-doping authorities but are happy enough to splashed all over the tabloid press
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
I find Valverde so nauseating that it's hard to have the least bit of sympathy for him...
…and most of these arguments just seem like such transparent technical bs as to make you want to hurl.
But then there’s brad’s ‘witch hunt’ point. If I was one of the very few people actually getting popped for my involvement in a very wide-spread scheme, and I was looking at a ton of others in the peloton with me going on their merry way, I’d be pissed too.
That said, the guy makes my skin crawl, and this isn’t helping.
But he's not
Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi…granted there are many more that haven’t been ‘popped’, but piti is hardly the only one getting nailed to the stake.
"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
One of the few...
…is my point. Or at least the one thing that always makes me a little uncomfy about the continuing saga of Puerto. There comes a point where it’s just taking too damn long.
That said, he’s contributed to the bs-factor here enormously with all the fairly obviously silly appeals. If you can’t even deny that you were in violation of the rules, your argument about how nobody should have been able to prove that, even though they did, just rings enormously hollow. And ‘rights’ talk at that point becomes laughable. This is where the spoiled rich athlete getting caught for doping really takes on a different moral value than the striving poor kid. Ugh.
It wouldn't be a witch hunt on a select few
if just the fucking fuckety fuck fuck fuckadoodeldodiddelydoo spanish federation(and higher sporting authorities) had done it’s job to begin with now would it.
If any of the witches feel mistreated they should file their complaints with the spanish minister of sports as far as I’m concerned.
UCI's press release added above
Short version: ‘Oh yes, we will extend it worldwide.’
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
This ruling is total BS
Undermines what little credibility any of the federations/UCI had left. Why not revisit every case in the last ten years and ban them retroactively?
Until Armstrong is suspended for his name being tied in with Michele Ferrari and the books of ‘almost -proof’ they have against that snake, I’m not going to feel good about any of these “well, we ALMOST have proof that he cheated in competition” rulings.
Like I’ve said before. Big Business makes the Law and money makes the verdict.
Dude..
We know for years he cheated.. He kept quiet making the sport unbelievable.. It was, look the guy who doped can ride here.. I think it’s a fair punishment if they get him the ban..
So before he was convicted you didn’t know? That’s not what you said. You said: "We’ve known for years….so you have some proof outside of the conviction?
We have known for years that this was Valverde's blood.
We’ve known for more than a year based on DNA evidence that even he isn’t disputing.
Manzano testimony on how the Kelme team including Valv.Piti at the Vuelta
came down to dinner with testosterone patches on their legs and they were almost caught at dinner and had to be hustled to another room.
by Vlaanderen90 on Mar 16, 2010 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s exactly my point, that’s how it will be interpreted which is BS. It’s ok if you admit your bias, I’m more than happy to admit mine in this argument.
How many of you believe, or got sucked into believing Landis was “framed”
Yeah…..sure!
Do you even understand the rule he broke?
It’s a blood doping rule. The EPO was pure bonus. Storing bags of a riders blood is doping. Period.
Yes, I understand the rule
and my problem is with that rule. Other rides seem to appeal the grounds of a positive suspension based on questionable handling.
Let me ask you this.
What’s that cheating American Zirble defense?
Questionable handling doesn't change DNA profiles.
It’s his blood. That’s all that matters here. Not even Valv.piti, who will apparently dispute anything, disputes that.
Zirbel, Landis, and every other case you can think of is irrelevant here.
How is it irrelevant? If you have a judging system, the system needs to be consistent correct?
You think it wasn’t Zirbel’s blood, or Landis’ or Simoni’s that they took out of THEIR bodies?
If you lack consistency in your dealings, you lack credibility. Then noone believes in the system of punishment. Then noone believes in the rules, the sport. This is another example of cycling losing it’s credibility.
Because, for the fifth time, landis, zirbel etc were not convicted of blood doping.
Totally different evidentiary and procedural problem. Not relevant.
It’s the same end result, you and I both know that’s BS. You telling me there is no possibility at all, none what-so-ever that the blood bag could contain EPO and Valverde’s name without him knowing it? Absolutely NO possibility? I don’t think so.
Oh my god. Dude!
THE EPO IS NOT THE PROBLEM. EVEN IF THERE WAS NO EPO, HE’D STILL BE BANNED.
Is that clear yet?
If I were his lawyer I'd use that defence as I said above.
But you still have the problem of what the hell is he doing leaving bags of his blood with doctors? It’s not like, say, a little sample that might get stored, it’s a bag of blood that would have to be taken with your permission. The only real purpose of doping that would be autologous transfusion. That means “intention to dope”, even if you can’t actuallty demonstrate it was ever put back in his veins again.
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
doing that
Never could type. Or for that matter, read.
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
My point is the “he” ^. How do we know this “he” is a knowing Valverde? The Kelme team was systematically doing all sorts of sh*t with their riders, Manzano has said so. So how can anyone proove that Valverde 1. was getting any performance advantage 2. actually knew of this Blood 3. actually consented to HIS blood being stored.
It’s possible all of this was going on behind his back. You telling me that a second year pro couldn’t have blood taken by a team of professional doctors and naively move along? “This is just how it is done on our team”
so they drew bags of blood from him
w/out his consent and/or knowledge?
Explain how it’s possible to draw enormous quantities of blood without his awareness.
And . . . even if that is the case, ignorance of the law is not an excuse . ..
ignorance of the law is not an excuse
Certainly it IS. This is my whole point. This is ultimately what all the riders claim. Ignorance of the law.
Dekker claimed ignorance of the LAW?
Really? He said he didn’t know that the thing he was doing was banned? I don’t recall any such thing.
because he didn't
The Dutch cyclist originally denied using performance-enhancing substances, but confessed after his B sample also proved positive, saying that he had used EPO once – although the abnormal data in his biological passport contradict that – and that it had been "a mistake" but he was nevertheless sacked by Silence-Lotto.
http://road.cc/content/news/15316-two-year-doping-ban-thomas-dekker
There are video interviews as well.
Dekker claimed ignorance of the process of the law. He seemed to believe that he could get a reduced suspension for testing out of competition did he not?
Got a link for that?
I don’t recall ever seeing that claim. And it would be quite odd for him to make it, since the rules are very clear on that issue.
so why are you citing it again?
If it doesn’t make him not guilty, why is it relevant? Also, didn’t you claim it did make him not guilty?
What, so if he believed it was true
they should then make it true for him?
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
No…I couldn’t care about Dekker. Someone asked for an example. That was the most recent I could think of. It’s not related anyway. It was jsut to the point that riders obviously are not always aware of all the laws.
He did tell (Sporza?)just last week
that he was surprised to get the full sentence given the test was in Dec. and others popped in races had gotten more lenient yada yada yada,…….
Exactly, you all know he did in his comments about Ricco. This means that the riders don’t have the anti-doping handbook in their nighttables and obviously don’t know the details of the laws. They are often ignorant of the laws and try to use this defense/plea all the time.
I don’t agree with all of Lawrence’s arguments, and it’s true that ignorance of the law can’t be used as an excuse for breaking the law. Still, I find that to a certain degree I agree with the spirit of his comments – i.e., punishing the guys higher up rather than the riders. I mean, isn’t that what a lot of the people arguing against Lawrence in this thread are arguing for in fmk’s thread?
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
sure, look below at his 10:30 am comment for example, “you’re a pro-rider whose job is on the line, in an era when everyone was doping and a doctor takes a bag of blood (which you can give, the same amount very easily at your local hospital) they can make any reason logical.” Just seems very similar to the arguments in favour of leniency towards riders in the fmk thread, parallels to “boosters”/manipulators in college athletics in the US…
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Only he is American….and Valverde is Spanish and we all know that the Spanish lie, cheat and steal their way to the top right? Forget that.
It’s getting hard to see who’s responding to who…but Lawrence, I think you’re wrong if you’re saying the people arguing against you here are simply arguing on the basis of nationalism – the same people in here came down pretty hard on Hamilton last year, for example.
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
eh, except why would you let anyone take that much blood.
We’re not talking about a small vial for medical tests here.
The other arguments, and I assume you mean mine, weren’t so much for ‘leniency’ as for a different regime that’s both more timely and a bit less harsh against individuals, but more aimed at altering the system. I do feel for the ones who, as children in many cases, get drawn in by preparatores or coaches who turn a blind eye to preparatores, and sort of put through a system before they’re really in a position to be expected to exert a lot of control on their own. But there’s no reason to think that Valv or any higher level pro is really in the same situation at all. These guys can very reasonably be expected to take some responsibility. So I really don’t see the parallels.
Well, I know that if someone were taking blood from me, I probably wouldn’t immediately know if it was “lots” or “only a little,” not only because I’m completely ignorant of all things medical, but because the person could tell me he needed enough blood for several samples, or whatever. I’d be freaked out enough at the sight of blood to not be thinking straight, that’s for sure. ;)
As for the distinction between kids and upper-level guys, well, don’t get me wrong, like I said above, it’s true that at a certain point you have to take responsibility. But then what’s the dividing line between the kids and the upper-level guys? Isn’t the 25-yr-old star the same guy whose judgment has been impaired by being caught up in this weird and manipulative system since he was 14? Anyways, I’m not putting forth concrete proposals, just saying I’m sympathetic to that part of Lawrence’s argument that concerns wanting to avoid throwing the book at one dude without taking on the higher-ups, or looking at context.
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
throwing the book at one dude
is easy to say when it’s the first one. let’s see where it goes from here before saying valv was made and example of/it was a witch hunt…
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Replying to pliny (not sure where it will land):
Well, I know that if someone were taking blood from me, I probably wouldn’t immediately know if it was "lots" or "only a little,"
I’ve donated blood many times, for which they take a pint. It takes quite a while, so no one could mistake the loss of a full blood bag for a little bit for tests.
It also wipes you out. It’s a lot of blood to lose at once. Effects vary, but people frequently feel dizzy and weak—I tried running once a few hours after giving blood and just about passed out.
The body replaces the blood volume within 24 hours, but it takes weeks to replace the lost red blood cells (EPO would certainly speed that up, of course). Fewer red blood cells means less oxygen-carrying capacity in the short term, so I don’t think an athlete would be likely to give a pint of blood lightly. And you certainly couldn’t sneak it out of them without them knowing.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Hey, thanks for this. Yeah, I’ve given blood too, and I know what you mean about the dizziness. And the thing is, these guys are tested all the time, so if anyone’s familiar with the process it’s them. My point is just that it’s an easy situation to manipulate: you’re told you’ll have to give just a bit more blood today…or you aren’t told, and realize once it’s done…or you’re so freaked out by the medical surroundings that you don’t notice, or barely notice (this would be my case, hehe). Or, simply, the doctor – this guy you’ve been taught to look up to since you were a kid – says “this is how it’s going to be,” and you acquiesce.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to claim innocence for Valverde, just trying to understand the context as well as possible, explore all sides of the argument, etc.
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
i think suspicion should have entered the picture
when he was told to go see a gynecologist (isn’t that what fuentes is, or is that ferrari?). granted i hang around a good amount of people from the medical professions, but…
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
A full blood bag is a pint. I’ve giving blood as well. Do I know where it went? Do you? Do you know what was done with it? No, you presume.
AND if you’re ordered to give it by your team? Like you said, that blood is back in less than a week, so it could be taken at training camp and then bam, it’s back. Simple.
From what I’ve read in the press Valverde’s blood is from 03/04 (when he was with Kelme) others say it’s from 2006, well that is possible if he just gave it, but the raids where in March in 2006…so it would have to be pretty much at the same time.
As well, the DNA tests I thought proved that the blood was from before he even had his dog, and that was part of their defense, that he didn’t have a dog named Piti at the time that blood was taken. Which confirms the 03/04.
It also is why Manzano is involved because it’s from Kelme days. You telling me they couldn’t get a pint of blood out of his arm and do who knows what with it? It takes 3 minutes, and if he refused he’d been fired.
i'm not saying you can't get a pint out of someone
want a pint? i can get you a pint.
but if that were the case (that valv.piti is all innocent), use it as you defense. and give me a good reason why someone would want to store that blood if there was no intent to dope.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Questions about the dividing line...
…don’t eliminate the point that there should be one, or that someone like Valv fairly clearly falls on the other side of it.
As for taking a pint. You’d know (as you point out below) and if you’re an athlete subject to a ban on autologous blood doping, you’d never give that much. To do so would put you in violation. If you needed it for surgery or something, you’d probably get a TUE to do so. The arguments that this could have happened all innocently are specious.
what, Thomas?
Hasn’t he admitted it using the “injured & stupid” defence?
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
Nah, no way
Dekker admitted that he’d made a mistake, and claimed that he’d only doped once. Can’t say I buy that assertion, but he did admit that he was wrong. That’s hardly ignorance.
find the relevant clause in WADA
and then go ask Scott Moninger what he thinks of yoru assertion.
I think it’s time to post the Black Knight clip from Holy Grail . . .
i take it he's on your vds team? ;)
but really, kinda hard to take a bag of blood without him knowing, isn’t it?
So, what? They knocked him out with an high dose of EPO...
…then secretly took away his blood and stored it where they knew the spanish federation, which wasn’t going to prosecute, would find it, because they eventually knew the italians would prosecute?
That's good 'cause some folks might miss it
and then we have anew pissing contest…
THe idea of MIB tranq’ing riders and stealing their blood is too funny to pass on.
Look, you can make fun all you want, but when guys like Landis say it’s because they were drinking whiskey (I know, different situation) and Hamilton saying it was his unborn fetus ( I KNOW, different situation), there is precedent that the law needs to go through the appropriate process to prove/disprove even the most silly claims.
Cocaine in candy? BULLSH*T and in this case Simoni IS one of my favorite rides AND he is on my VDS team no matter HOW dumb it is.
The fact is, Valverde is in a situation were the law has been broken, his blood has been stored. BUT, noone here or otherwise can prove he ever 1. used it, 2. knew of it, 3.wouldn’t have lost his job if he didn’t give blood to Kelme 4. has anytime in the last 6 years been involved in anything remotely illegal (this blood is from ‘03-’04 if I’m not mistaken.
No matter how silly that is…it ain’t an unborn brother in his stomach. (which I know didn’t fly.)
Really not likely they could take a whole bag of blood & him not be aware.
I think he would have to prove as his defence that he didn’t know about it or that Kelme forced him, not vice versa. In fact, if that’s the case, why isn’t he using that defence?
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
It’s not illegal to take blood is it? In any way, as a doctor? It’s illegal to store blood no? Could Valverde not know they were storing it?
Huh? I don’t think that’s correct. I’m pretty sure a registered doctor can take blood from an atheletes body and it is not illegal. It’s only illegal to store it, or take it outside of a medical facility is it not? That is why France recently changed the law.
Except that there's no reason...
…to take that much blood except to store it.
So no.
That doesn’t matter. Because, EXCEPT that…
just proves that it’s possible. You can say “so no” all you want, but when you’re a pro-rider whose job is on the line, in an era when everyone was doping and a doctor takes a bag of blood (which you can give, the same amount very easily at your local hospital) they can make any reason logical.
But here's the thing...
…it doesn’t matter what Valverde’s ‘intent’ was in the volitional sense of the term.
The existence of the stored blood is the violation. The existence of the stored blood, however it got stored and by whoever’s authority, proves what the rules call ‘intent to dope,’ which is a violation. Intent here is not being used in the sense of referring to the state of Valv.piti’s will, but to a configuration of objective circumstances that are consistent with using the materials in question for the purposes of doping. And setting up that configuration of circumstances is illegal and something the rider is held responsible for. All of this is in the rules, clearly stated. So any athlete who allows that much blood to be drawn is responsible for what gets done with it later. Period. There is no ambiguity about this whatsoever.
Right, except that all of this argument was presented in Spanish courts, they ruled the case closed. So why it was the Italians right to prusue it further is crazy, because the argument I have was dealt with by Spain. Now, CAS is saying CONI was ok to do that, which is just crap and it’s going to start a whole HUGE mess of riders being pardoned in one place and then puniched in another. Which is why I said this ruling is crap.
The Italians busted him
because he rode in Italy during the period he had stored blood. Presumably other nations where he rode could bring charges too. Different countries, different laws.
I know that. But, the stored blood was from a different time, and the stored blood had been ruled on. The case was closed. The Italians didn’t have different stored blood or I wouldn’t have a problem with any of this.
Where the blood was stored makes no difference
No Spanish laws were apparently broken. But he cheated when he rode in Italy and did break Italian laws.
the italians are not the spanish
just because someone’s buddy tells you that the someone in question didn’t do x, does not mean you have to listen to them, unless the buddy is your superior.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
However there are different reasons to store blood.
Non Athlete people can have bags of blood drawn and stored for future emergency use. This ensures available clean matching blood. this could have been explained to a young rider in such a way.
Not agreeing with the Piti is innocent crowd but all of these are things that courts and lawyers and judges and juries are around for.
And also the reason why some criminals are never prosecuted and some innocent people go to jail.
'When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning' - Dr. Reiner Knizia
by bought with blood on Mar 16, 2010 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
But again
that’s a hypothetical argument. If they believe that’s what happened, or that it’s a legitimate defence, why aren’t Valverde & his lawyers using it? The onus is on them to demonstrate that aspect of their defence if they think it’s valid, rather than on us to say no rider should be sanctioned because it might have been the case (even when no one connected with the case has used that argument at all, as far as I know).
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
I’m back….oh no. They did that in Spain. The blood which the Italians got their hands on is the blood from Puerto (evidence in a case that has been closed).
The blood the Italians have is clean, it just has his DNA, which happens to match the DNA in the Puerto blood. Except Valverde disputes this.
I know it’s easy to black-ball atheletes, but in what judicial system does this other non-sense become acceptable? You can arguably illegally acquire evidence from a closed case and use it in order to punish someone according to your laws, in your country? because you don’t have evidence on him of your own?
That’s totally dodgy. If Valverde was positive when they tested his blood in the TDF, there would be no debate, but he wasn’t…so they went to Puerto.
i think it's illegally obtained..
only as far as spain is concerned. spain has no jurisdiction in italy. therefore the italians argue it’s legal. CAS agrees.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
No, the Puerto blood was illegally obtained. All that evidence was in the hands of Spanish court. It wasn’t given to the Italians in a manner that met Spanish law, and it wasn’t approved by the Spanish court. For all intents and purposes it was ‘mishandled’ or ‘stolen’
The Italians got it perfectly legally
And the only hint of timing being crucial I’ve seen is a suggestion somewhere that Serrano himself tipped them off on when he was going on holiday. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant, the Italians obtained it through the standard international judicial channels with no restrictions on how it should be used.
Monty's right.
No laws were broken in the course of obtaining this evidence. Valv.piti can whine all he wants, but the facts don’t support the whining.
Do you have a link for that?, because I read that the Spanish judge overseeing the case claimed the opposite and he said it needed to be approved by him that the blood be let out. I can find the article later tonight.
i think one judge was against it
apparently doing anything he can, (start conspiracy theory) probably under orders from the minister for sports or someone of the sort, to keep his athletes looking clean. (end conspiracy) he goes on vacation, someone who wasn’t bought out takes control of the case, and sends the evidence to italy.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Different judges
often make different rulings. In all jurisdictions.
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
if you're relying on process
as a defence, then you have to accept adverse consequences of that same process. (see, also, HCR.)
not at all
i have a big problem with the judge not releasing the info based on (allegedly) pressure from higher ups. what the interim judge did is fine with me. if one judge’s decision is legal, then so is the other (given the assumption that they were both ruling on the same thing)
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
No athlete subject to a ban on autologous blood doping...
…gives a pint of blood innocently. Period. That’s what the ban means. And believe me, any athlete subject to such ban knows it, or at least is responsible for knowing it and abiding by the rule.
I would not assume the Valv-Piti blood is from '03-'04
just because that’s when he rode for Kelme. Fuentes was an independent contractor, dealing with riders from a variety of teams. If he worked with Basso and Hamilton while they were on CSC and Ullrich while he was on T-Mob, there’s no reason he couldn’t have worked with Valverde in 2006.
It seems much more likely that the Valv-Piti blood bags are from 2006. Why would Fuentes hang on to three-year-old blood from a rider who was no longer a client?
Or he was planning to make a giant statue
a la Marc Quinn. Or he was learning Ecky Thump
Ecky Thump
is the world’s premier martial art
“the law needs to go through the appropriate process to prove/disprove even the most silly claims.”
not really. the process needs to prove guilt. that is all. either way, if valv.piti wants to claim god sent his son down to turn water into vavlerde blood, and then some evil sideburned mafia came in the picture and added EPO to it, so be it, he can use that defense, but that is not what the CAS ruling was about. it was a matter of jurisdiction, and the process determined that valverde’s claim of no jurisdiction was not valid.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Yes, I know, but all of this was considered in Spanish court, everything I am arguing about, and it was dismissed. Why do you think Contador is still riding? and 65 or so other riders.
So, if Spanish court ruled against all of these claims, the Italy didn’t like it….well too bad. Spain didn’t seek out a ban against Simoni because they didn’t like the ruling. So it’s bullshit.
nah...
it was never considered in Spanish court. Because there were no laws in Spain against doping at the time of the investigation, the case was never tried on the basis of the evidence.
WHAT???? no laws against doping at the time? Excuse me? That’s news to me. So why did the Spanish have the entire Operation then? Ummm there were laws against doping at the time, just not the same laws, AND they are revising those laws, but that shouldn’t be Valverde’s problem.
You misunderstand my point, I think.
I’m going to move my answer down to the bottom, to get out of the gutter.
Hang on…
look at my comment above
just because someone dismisses it does not make it illegal for some other sovereign nation to have a problem with it.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
The cocaine in candy idea sounds like bullshit
and that’s what the Italians thought at first, but Simoni was quite methodical and scientific in the way he worked out how he had tested positive. No procedural crap whatsoever, just pure evidence.
Yes I know, and that’s what the Spanish did (or so we assume) which got the whole Spanish -led case closed in Spain.
no. it's not.
The Spanish case got closed in Spain b/c the offenses in question were not violations of spanish LAW at the time they were committed, irrespective of sporting rules.
Nah, the Spanish case died
because the judge couldn’t find any charges to bring, but at the same time wasn’t prepared to completely dismiss the case and hand everything over to the sporting authorities. It just sat there for years in case he might do something.
So which is it? Ed,, Monty? It was still closed, the law dealt with it, and it was done. Like it or not, it should have stayed that way.
The case on athletes doping was closed
because that was not a crime at the time in Spain. It was held open because they were contemplating making the case that the doctors were guilty of the crime of endangering public health through unsafe medical practises. So both are right
Spanish law closed the case
Italian law didn’t. If he hadn’t ridden in Italy at that time then CONI would have had no case. It’s like a nineteen year old getting busted for drinking alcohol in one of those US states where you can’t buy booze until you’re thirty. Claiming that it’s legal in your own country ain’t no defence.
Your example is backwards. He did not commit the foul in Italy, he committed it in Spain. The Italians matched the ‘fouled’ blood from Spain to theirs taken in Italy. The Italian blood was fine, but they “acquired” the Puerto blood, matched it and made their decision.
So, in your example a nineteen year old getting pulled over, being clean and then somehow, in some crazy way being compared to evidence in his home state would never ever happen. That’s why this is crazy.
He rode in Italy in 2006
he had a blood bag in 2006 (which also contained EPO). Where he actually drew, stored or reinjected the blood is irrelevant for the Italian authorities. He cheated in Italy.
Of course we don't know..
Nobody found the evidence but abse on reports we can assume he did that.. It’s like.. denying the moon landing.. Because. as normal person the evidence could be planted
the moon….whaaaatttt????
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
But come on dude..
…the moon landing film was all in black and white. Totally proof that it was staged! If it had been real, it’d have been in color!
/snark
re Simoni and Cocaine
it ain’t bs, because it’s the truth:
Arguing with you on this stuff is largely pointless. But, I’m compelled, for some reason:
First, statute of limitations on these offenses is 8 years.
2010-8 = 2002. So, Manzano’s testimony about Valverde doping during the 02 and 03 Vuelta is relevant, as is evidence suggesting Valverde’s doping during the 02 or 03 Giro or any other races in Italy in which he competed—since doping in cycling was illegal in Italy at the time.
CONI is not trying to argue that Valverde is currently doping, or anything about his intent to use or not. They are arguing that raced WHILE DOPED in Italy, and they have argued multiple times (successfully) that they can prove this assertion.
I’m really not sure what your point is? That Valverde is actually non compos mentis and is sort of the Manchurian Campionissimo?
I wrote this further up. ^
The Italians do have not done this: They are arguing that raced WHILE DOPED in Italy, and they have argued multiple times (successfully) that they can prove this assertion.
The blood the Italians have is clean, it just has his DNA, which happens to match the DNA in the Puerto blood. Except Valverde disputes this.
I know it’s easy to black-ball atheletes, but in what judicial system does this other non-sense become acceptable? You can arguably illegally acquire evidence from a closed case and use it in order to punish someone according to your laws, in your country? because you don’t have evidence on him of your own?
That’s totally dodgy. If Valverde was positive when they tested his blood in the TDF, there would be no debate, but he wasn’t…so they went to Puerto.
because you can dope with clean blood
tis all
by thebongolian on Mar 16, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
If the Italians had proof with their blood tests he would have been suspended during the race. No?
So they didn’t. All of this is based on the DNA match of the Puerto blos.
tis all.
there isn't a test for autologous blood-doping
so you have to show that it was the intention
by thebongolian on Mar 16, 2010 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
and that intention, as a matter of law, is proven by...
…the existence of blood bags. That is all. And it is well established in the rules.
Indeed, it is the truth
For the record, this is why the Simoni candy defense is not bullshit.
First, Simoni submitted the lozenge for testing, and cocaine was discovered in it. This determined that the lozenge could have caused the positive test.
Next, Simoni submitted hair and other samples for further testing. These tests found cocaine matching the lozenge only. There were no other cocaine metabolites from other sources found.
His case was a textbook for how a rider can prove innocence. Simoni went above and beyond the “you can’t prove I doped” claims of Hamilton and Landis. Simoni voluntarily had his hair and blood retested and provided lab evidence showing that he was clean of any other sources of cocaine.
Any rider who wants to defend him/her self from doping charges has no better model to follow than Gibo Simoni.
Vlaanderens Mooiste
Number 1 is irrelevant...
doesn’t matter at all if his performance is enhanced
by Vlaanderen90 on Mar 16, 2010 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions
blood doping = replacing non-oxegenated blood with oxegenated blood.
Other kinds of doping, i.e., using banned substances, are a different animal. You need to get clear about this distinction, as you obviously don’t understand it.
huh???
I think there’s a hasty leap from specifics to generalization going on in the thought-process somehow. There’s a difference between murder and manslaughter, after all.
Zirbel is NOT contesting the validity of the finding of DHEA; he’s questioning how the substance got to be IN the sample. (Which, btw, is the line of reasoning that eventually got Simoni’s suspension over-turned: there actually WAS cocaine in the candies . . .).
Landis’s defenses . . . and it’s sort of a parlor-game to keep up with them . . . also do not contest that the sample is in fact his. Nor. despite alleging poor custody of the samples, do they really amount to alleging that someone polluted the samples. His ultimate defense is that the tests were so poorly performed (or that the samples were so corrupt, I get a little confused) that a reasonable person should not have labeled them ‘positive’.
Valverde has even less grounds to complain: the blood was his; storing blood is an offense. As Ed stated, the EPO is just a bonus.
Zirbel made no formal defense.
He, in the end, spent some money looking for a reason/defense, and then said screw it and took the ban.
Agreed.
Valv.piti broke the rules. There is no question of that. Even if the EPO is thrown out, the blood bag is enough.
Yup.
Basso did his time, when all they had was a stored blood bag. Proven intention to dope is enough for a ban.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
exactamente.
You can’t store bags of your blood if you’re an athlete. It’s illegal.
But Basso admitted to it, which is his choice. I’m not arguing that Valverde is better than Basso…or ‘cleaner’ than Basso. But Basso admitted it without being caught, as didi Riis. That doesn’t mean they had to. Riis could have gone to the grave with his lie.
Basso’s situation is not equal to Valverde’s
Sorry, you're flat out wrong here.
Basso was caught. They had a DNA match to his blood bag. The difference is, THEN Basso confessed (sort of) and took his punishment.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
For sure
It’s exactly the same case, really. Basso and Valverde. The only difference is the nationality of the rider and the question of who holds jurisdiction for sanctions. Today’s decision answers the question. Otherwise, same case with mostly the same evidence. The main difference is that Basso sorta cooperated, when it was clear he had few other options.
"without being caught"???
CONI identified the blood in the bag as his . . . how much more caught do you want him to be?
The difference is that the Italian federation handled Basso’s case more appropriately than did the Spanish federation—which is as plain as evidence as you’re ever gonna get about how firmly entrenched the culture of doping can be in some places. (purely my biased opinion, of course).
I happen to respect Baasso and Riis
alot more than Valverde or any of the unnamed Puerto guys whose guilt may or may not be provable. They had the guts to admit their mistakes which takes more strength than lowlifes like Piti will ever know. Its not a stupid move to be honest (not saying you said that, u did not) its just easier to forgive.
nah
if you think its poor, than be disgusted with it. i just dont see the problem with the justice system doing its job for once. The italians acted within their rights, i think the courts established that today. He doped, he got caught, he’ll face the consequences.
Its not like Armstrong didnt race against an equally doped field
We have a good idea of that. As much as I want justice, the authorities (UCI/ASO/WADA/Federations) cannot go on witch hunts to expose all the suspects of years past, or proceedings like this will last into the next decade. Lets leave Armstrong be.
As much as I want justice, the authorities (UCI/ASO/WADA/Federations) cannot go on witch hunts to expose all the suspects of years past
OH MY DEAR, this is exactly WHAT they have done with Valverde. The case WAS closed…there were dozens more riders than Valverde….but they just dug it all up and went after him.
I agree with you (except on Valverde) there should have been amnesty for EVERYONE… pre bio-passport.
Valverde is just the start
the Italians have samples from forty-odd blood bags and thousands of pages of documentation.
Well, then let’s hope it actually runs its course the way it did with Valverde, but I’m surely not going to bet on it.
I agree with you on that
I just dont tnink we should reach further back than Puerto, that was my point, sorry to have been unclear. Yes, lets purge the books on Puerto if the evidence is out there and is permissable in CONI’s investigation.
guess Spanish Federation will now ban from Spanish races all teams based in…the world…
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
haw
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Only if you bought the Pinarello...
to go with the outfit!
You can always say you’re the biggest Luis Leon Sanchez fan!
Why when I look at Luis Leon Sanchez do I think “Predator”?
Racing for Victory and Free Beer!
Anyway, I'm out.
It’s probably better anyway. Look, I disagree because of the inconsistencies. So we disagree. It’s bound to happen that one rider gets caught up in the mess of changing policies/handlings/federations etc as things progress. I believe this rider is Valverde in this case….maybe you don’t.
Regardless, I have to get stuff done and cannot argue about this any longer. I think it’s a shame that this punishment has been handled in the fashion it has and hopefully it makes for an embarrassment for more than just Valverde and they fix this garbage once and for all.
If this is the start of a new and more focused effort, then I’ll be happy with his suspension, but I just don’t believe it will be. It’ll be another one off, where one rider gets screwed, while hundreds of others, and managers and teams, just turn away and say “Shit, glad that wasn’t me.”
where one rider gets screwed, while hundreds of others, and managers and teams, just turn away and say "Shit, glad that wasn’t me."
no, no – It’s where one rider finally gets punished (not screwed) …. and perhaps others get away with it
As a famous Swede said (paraphrased) – just because we don’t catch every murderer …. doesn’t mean the ones we do catch shouldn’t get punished
Moo
Sweden
has laws?
"The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is." Edvald Boasson Hagen
And that's just the pickled herring
Staring at the swim team gets you killed by a gang of dancing ninja men who know how to twirl.
by TheFigurehead on Mar 16, 2010 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
why?
are you under the impression that it’s meat? Prove it. I challenge you to identify a single part in any can.
Somewhere in Japan
a saddened and appalled man is killing himself by slowly carving out his guts with a samurai-sword.
Good old reliable school dinner favourite
spam fritters. Take spam, slice, dip in batter, fry.
Oh my god, yes please, now
Staring at the swim team gets you killed by a gang of dancing ninja men who know how to twirl.
by TheFigurehead on Mar 16, 2010 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I have a jar in the fridge
but potatoes are really crappy now and it’s no good without really good potatoes
I believe I have one too
Leftover of a sort that I didn’t actually liked. And the new potato isn’t cheap yet.
Staring at the swim team gets you killed by a gang of dancing ninja men who know how to twirl.
by TheFigurehead on Mar 16, 2010 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I remember seeing a documentary once on Swedish food
where everybody pointed to the new potato season as being one of the highlights of the year. Sadly it was no parody.
Oh ye of little faith
come here in June and we will prove your snide remarks wrong. Sadly we cannot provide overcooked canned vegetables to go with the delicacies I’m afraid.
Purrrrrrr
I actually love herring, which should come as no surprise to you, But I’m sure what I’ve had pales in no comparison to what you have there, which should also come as no surprise to you. The tins just reminded me of a cat food tin. Herring in cream sauce is divine.
Honestly
this is what you call food?
"The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is." Edvald Boasson Hagen
Mmmmm
Herring salad or Heringsalat in German, with fresh herring, potatoes, beetroot, gherkin, mayonaise and more.
Although
this press release is a close second:
Abba Midsommarsill is a new, creamier variety of pickled herring that appeals both to ardent herring lovers looking for a change and to a younger group that has discovered pickled herring and prefers a creamier variety. When you open the lid, you are welcomed by the scent of newly cut chives and fresh dill
Did you know,
matjessill is from Dutch maatjesharing which is an bastardisation of maagdenharing, virgin herring, because the young herring caught from May to July doesn’t have any sperm or eggs yet.
Yes!, but by all accounts it is now two quite different dishes
I would go to holland just to make a comparison study.
Ah, you were assimilated
Staring at the swim team gets you killed by a gang of dancing ninja men who know how to twirl.
by TheFigurehead on Mar 16, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
How is it one rider who finally gets punished. Riders get punished all the time, and they should, but they also should be subject to a fair and just trial, and if they ‘get away’ with it, then that’s unfortunate, but that’s that. You don’t have other countries step in and say…oh this isn’t fair.
It’s funny how when the Spanish first tried to punish Basso, when the case was open the Italians, on Oct.13 ruled that he was innocent do to lack of evidence, then as it moves on, the truth came out, CONI stepped in and Basso did his time. But in that case, you didn’t have an outsider like France, get involved and try to take matters into their own hands as the Italians have done with Valverde.
I'm sorry but you are completely distorting the account of the events to fit your opinion
I don’t even know where to begin.
I’m not sure why you think this. If it comes across that way, it’s not inteded. What part is distorted? Basso?
or that many riders get punished for cheating?
Well to start with whats in the post I replied to
The truth came out because CONI stepped in, not the other way around. When it became apparent that nothing was happening in Spain they repeatedly requested that the spanish handed over evidence which they finally did on Scarponi and Basso. Before that the italians had little choice but to conclude that they were innocent due to lack of evidence.
That’s what I said:
“the Italians, on Oct.13 ruled that he was innocent do to lack of evidence, then as it moves on, the truth came out, CONI stepped in and Basso did his time.”
perhaps I could have typed it:
the Italians, on Oct.13 ruled that he was innocent do to lack of evidence, then as it moves on, the truth came out, ’cause CONI stepped in and Basso did his time.
Sorry, my mistake. doesn’t change the fact that the Italians originally tried to get Basso off.
No they didn't
they did not have the evidence. After everything you’ve said, you now seem to be suggesting that CONI should have sanctioned Basso without the evidence!
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
But everything was stalled for ages as the spanish refused to supply the evidence
whatever some italian official said in that period should be seen in that light. And while there surely where/are forces in Italy too that would rather leave it alone, the fact is that the responsible body took the initiative to go after the riders that are their primary responsibility.
I understand this, but can I ask you, is one of those riders a Spanish rider? I don’t think so. CONI needs to take responsibility for Italians and the Spanish have their federations to deal with their riders. Do you not agree?
The Spanish deal with their riders by doing shit
their federation should be disbanded, they have put themselves in a position where outside forces have to take care of business.
Proud member of Thuggetz nation.
That’s not the rider’s responsibility, it’s the responsibility of the Spanish, and they are revising their laws as we speak. When has Contador or other been responsible for Spain’s cycling federation?
As soon as Spanish riders go to ride in Italy
they put themselves under Italian jurisdiction. Maybe now the AFLD can open an inquiry too.
No, I don't agree and as Monty points out neither do the rules
that is why I said primary responsibility. Italian riders are of course their primary responsibility but they are also within their rights to sanction foreign riders who cheat in italian races.
Ok, I’m tired of jumping all over the place responding to everyone at the same time. So I’ll ask you. Do the Italians have proof that Valverde cheated during their races? I understand that the only proof they have is the match to Puerto DNA.
They have DNA evidence
(obtained from comparing marked Puerto bags to blood taken at the Prato Nevoso stage) that links Valverde to a codename. That codename appears on preparation logs detailing illegal doping preparation before and during the time that Valverde competed in Italy. So while he may not have drawn blood in Italy or tested positive in an Italian race they have evidence that he benefitted from an ongoing doping program while racing in Italy.
And best, the nuances of that don't even really matter...
…he had stored blood. Intent to dope. He raced in Italy while that blood was stored. Thus, he raced in Italy in violation of doping rules.
End of story. This is so unambiguous it’s hard to imagine how it could possibly be clearer.
(This only to reinforce your point Jens)
by that argument
if I steal something in France the French can’t psecute me – it would be up to the British courts as I’m British
As Valverde broke the law in italy CONI can go after him
by thebongolian on Mar 16, 2010 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
we can make it to 300 comments
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Or we can quietly, and hoping no-one notices
extract 100 or so, and store them away until we need them
by Monty. on Mar 16, 2010 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I know this little website in Spain
nudge nudge, wink wink.
is it a women's health website?
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
The question is
Will the comments be better afterwards?
Staring at the swim team gets you killed by a gang of dancing ninja men who know how to twirl.
by TheFigurehead on Mar 16, 2010 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I have a motorcycle with panniers
that you can transport comments around in. It has wireless interwebs.
Thats's 'cos
you keep falling asleep with the Z key stuck to your balls
This is probaly a stupid idea,
but nm i am used to being stupid :-)
But what if all the riders who know they have nothing to do with puerto demanded to have their DNA profile compared to the puerto DNA profiles and in that way got at proof that they have nothing to do with puerto. The benefit of that would be that they would not need to worry about stupid internet people speculating about their involvement.
We have more than 900 riders on the VDS and only some 40 are in some ways connected to puerto, if a majority of the “puerto-free” riders demanded to have that DNA comparison and was ready to pay for it to happen then they could force the authorities to do it, they could simply deny riding until they got what they wanted.
I know it is stupid to have to prove you are innocent but on the other hand it is also stupid that we and the riders have to deal with all the rumors, how ever fun it may be speculating, at some point the fun goes out of even the funnest speculating.
So who's going to go first?
There’s a special suffering involved when the peloton decides to let you dangle off the front . . .
They do have a riders union
they could take action to protect the innocent riders.
by LittleOldLady on Mar 16, 2010 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
How did I miss out on all that head banging nonsense?
Just lucky I guess.
I think Lawrence just wants a perfect justice system so all the dirty bandits get punished, he doesn’t think it’s justice if (presumably) most of the bad guys get away.
Will’s expert eye caught it in the end, Lawrence referred to Valverde as getting screwed, but as Will opinted out…
It’s where one rider finally gets punished (not screwed)
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Exactly
it seems as if justice is not as simple as ‘if you do bad you will get punsihed.’ Valverde fell to circumstance, he was thrown through the ringer because of the Valv.Piti suspicion, which isn’t fair to him in comparison to the other 40-50 riders whose names really haven’t been dragged through the mud like his, but it is what it is. He did bad, and he got caught, but not everyone will, unless CONI takes more action. And we can’t expect perfect justice, let’s take this case for what it is, he was caught by th authorities as partaking in a doping ring and is being suspended in accordance. Life goes on, cycling goes on just maybe one star short.
What is wrong with wanting a working justice system. I think the word ‘perfect’ is an over-statement. Take this behavior to any other system, and it violates a series of rights. Nowhere in the world can another country step into an investigation that has been ruled on and get their own evidence, and acquire the evidence from said previous trial and then make their own decision.
Riders may cheat, many do, and many are caught, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have rights.
Nowt wrong with wanting that
But some of your posts imply you’d rather have no justice if you can’t have perfect justice
Sadly all justice systems make mistakes and sometimes will punish the innocent and acquit the guilty
by thebongolian on Mar 16, 2010 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I feel for you, dude, I really do.
There are a lot of us here who have seen a favorite rider go down in flames. Been there. It sucks. It hurts. But right now, you’re arguing from the heart, not the actual details of the case, and it might be time to step back until you cool down. Go outside and smash a couple of your least favorite mugs, get into a howling contest with your neighbor’s dog.
Then, once the initial outrage passes, you might be able to assess what did and didn’t happen in Valverde’s case a bit more clearly. Maybe you’ll see things differently, and maybe you won’t, but if you take some time and read up on the case, at least you might be able to argue your POV more effectively.
Best of luck.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
this has nothing to do with favorite riders. I already replied to this comment. Simoni is ‘my favorite rider’ whatever that means, and I don’t buy anything about that candy-store defense, but that’s a different story.
I’m arguing this because 1. I think it goes against proper judicial proceedings 2.makes serious assumptions (when has that been good enough in court?), 3. violates riders rights to previous judgments, 4. places blame on the rider and none on the team/doctor, and 5. equates doping positives during competition to suspected doping in competition…although this is a lesser concern.
Not a favorite? Somebody hacked your profile, then.
Either way, your arguments would be a lot stronger if they were based on the actual details of the case.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Where did I say that?
I said Gilberto Simoni is my favorite rider…and my profile states that. I also said, I don’t buy into the candy-store defense, and believe I can argue my point without being a fan. As well, Valverde hasn’t even been suspended by the UCI yet (although it’s likely coming), I’m not even arguing about ‘his suspension’. I arguing that the CAS could agree that CONI has done the correct thing.
I do believe I have a solid understanding of the case, and I may see it differently, but I haven’t seen anyone say: This is wrong, here is a link.
Just because you want to be dismissive doesn’t mean you’re actually reading correctly what I am typing.
As I said, it's in your profile. Under "Fan of."
You’ve been corrected so many times it’s difficult to see a solid understanding of the case. I don’t think you’re doing yourself any favors by continuing.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
by majope on Mar 16, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I know what it says in my profile
You said:
“Not a favorite? Somebody hacked your profile, then.”
and I asked
Where did I say he’s not a favorite?
I said: this has nothing to do with favorite riders. I already replied to this comment. Simoni is ‘my favorite rider’ whatever that means
Anyway, this is just getting silly.
Yes it is
I see what you’re getting at, you’ve made your point clear, it just happens that your ideas of the injustice here are a little overstated, and not persecuting Valverde with evidence is not the best solution for the sake of the sport. The courts made a fair decision and hopefully he doesnt become a scapegoat for the entire case. Please dont get overly defensive, its unnecessary.
Well, I'm done.
I came here to discuss the issue, not to defend myself. I have ideas about this case as we all do, and wanted to discuss those ideas, and contrary to what some people want to imply, I think I know a fair bit about it, perhaps just interpret it differently.
But when it gets near to the point of insulting me because I have those ideas, or telling me outright that I have no idea what I am talking about, when I’m having to respond to 15 people at once, then it’s probably not the community I want to be discussing this in anyway. Thanks.
I hope we can all have our own opinions on here can’t we? I’m not insulting anyone who feels opposite to me.
Everyone has respectfully answered you over and over again
they have corrected you or supplied a counter-argument. Go on some other forum and see what insulting really means. So you don’t want to respond to 15 people at once, you don’t have to but maybe it should tell you something when it’s 15-1. You are of course entitled to your opinions but that’s quite the imbalance there.
Proud member of Thuggetz nation.
1. cas disagrees (not that it makes it right, but it’s a step in the right direction, and they know way more than i do on the subject).
2. can you prove intent (which is done in trials all the time) without some assumptions?
3. not sure what you mean by that.
4. coni is investigating vavlerde. when they put out a press release/court decision saying the team/doctor is innocent, we can argue about that, but for now, just because they haven’t gone after them does not mean they don’t blame them for what happened.
5. that’s what the bio passport is all about.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
See...
…you claim this, but in fact what happened was not the violation of rights you claim it was. They obtained the evidence though legal channels, and that sort of sharing is a fairly normal procedure, and the Italians determined that Valverde participated in races in Italy during the period where the Valv.piti evidence showed that rider as having a clear intent to dope, and oh, the blood in the bag matched Valverde’s, so according to the rules that were very much in place, Valverde was shown, by a perfectly consistent and solid evidentiary procedure, to have violated doping rules while participating in Italian races. Thus, sanction.
Why this is a violation of his rights is a mystery to me. If it were, I’d be with you. But it’s not, at all.
“Nowhere in the world can another country step into an investigation that has been ruled on and get their own evidence, and acquire the evidence from said previous trial and then make their own decision.”
are you saying that if France for example considers a person to be innocent of let’s say child molestation, then a country like Switzerland, for argument’s sake, can’t bring said person to trial?
imagine there’s no countries… as some dude once said. imagine all you want, but until the robots take us all over each country is sovereign and what other countries do does not have to matter.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Further...
…fairly widely accepted principles of jurisdiction now hold that countries can prosecute certain sorts of violations in their own courts no matter where they took place. This is in fact a hugely important principle in human rights law, namely that those who violate such rights can be tried in any court, regardless of whether the legal system in their own country is willing to try them.
Admittedly, this is a far cry from a doping offense, but as an example it shows just how far from the truth it is to claim that a rider has some kind of basic right to only have one court in one country ever look at any doping evidence that may be found against them.
regarding "but that doesn’t mean they don’t have rights"
what right(s) was trampled/ignored here? his right to have his country sports federations brush the whole puerto thing under the carpet so that their ill-gotten good name won’t be dirtied? i don’t see a right being violated.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Someone
must redo this video (or whatever it is) with images of Bernard Hinault.
"The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is." Edvald Boasson Hagen
Yeah, why not
Done. But far from perfect.
Staring at the swim team gets you killed by a gang of dancing ninja men who know how to twirl.
by TheFigurehead on Mar 17, 2010 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I had no idea badgers were so crazy about mushrooms
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Dude! I just went into epileptic convulsions!
That needs a warning like a Wang Chung video!
Racing for Victory and Free Beer!
I've seen alot of stupid internet sh*t in my day...
But this has to be the most awesome stupid internet sh*t i’ve ever seen in my life. Well done Ted!
by PopUp Rolen on Mar 16, 2010 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Have to agree there
With both parts.
And I did think it quite appropriate for this particular thread.
I think Jens was the one who linked it first
here on PdC. At least that is how I learned of its existence. It is my only bookmark in the self-help folder, guaranteed to help me through rough spots in life. It answers a lot of questions.
One more point
The full TAS judgement has so far only been published in French. Odd since the panel consisted of an Englishman, a German and an Italian.
According to para 26, when Valverde had his blood taken by CONI that day the Tour passed into Italy he signed a form authorising them to use that sample for all anti-doping purposes “including but not limited to …”
And going on
It’s interesting that both CONI and the UCI got hold of copies of all of Fuentes’ documents at a very early stage, September 2006, before the Spanish judiciary started messing around.
Para 47: The accompanying documentation must say something that hasn’t been mentioned in earlier stories in the press about when the blood was given, since there is talk of a doping violation took place between May 2004 and May 2006 (the latter being the date of the Spanish Civil Guard raid). Maybe the blood was taken during Valverde’s days at Kelme, but all that menas is that for as long as it was sitting in Fuentes’ fridge Valverde was committing a doping offence.
Para 73: The UCI actually asked TAS not only to extend Valverde’s suspension worldwide, but also to annul all of his results going back to 4th May 2004. I don’t remember reading about that last bit before.
Para 81-82: the regulations applicable are those in place on 23rd of May 2006, the date of the Spanish raid, since after that time the blood was no longer available for reinfusion.
Para 88: On 30th June 2005 and again on 22nd December 2005, NAS introduced regulations that gave them authority over non-Italians competing in Italy. The exact phrase (in the TAS translation) is “sujet non affilié”
Para 115: if the Spanish judiciary really did see this whole procedure as illegal then representations should have been made through the Spanish Public Minister, not just by a judge saying “this isn’t right”
Para 123: further to the Spanish “Ordonnance de Revocation,” TAS’ own constitution states that “the Panel is not bound by decisions taken by any other jurisdictional body … [and] not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform [itself] in such a manner as the arbitrators think fit”
Paras 126-131: lots of reasoning why the Ordonnance de Revocation is invalid. It didn’t consider the role played by NAS and the “Parquet de Rome” in the CONI investigation. They don’t apply to international requests. The judge should have consulted both the Parquet de Rome and the Spanish Judiciary Minister before issuing it. It only relates to Spanish law anyway.
Para 137-8: Valverde also seems to have claimed that his genetic profile is privileged information under Swiss privacy laws. “règles relatives à la protection de la personnalité,” if you will. TAS say that no-one knew what DNA was contained in blood bag 18 when they first tested it.
Para 140-2: Valverde claimed that CONI had no right to use the sample taken from him during the 2008 Tour de France to compare with blood bag 18. TAS pointed out the form he signed at the time “including but not limited to…” Plus the main inquiry was by NAS who are a police force and have a few more powers.
And to finish off
Para 152-155: Valverde challenged the chain of custody of the samples from when they were taken from Fuentes’ lab to when they reached Barcelona (the Italians made a point of keeping strong records for what they handled and when). They were in the hands of a courier overnight so anything could have happened. But rules permit for transport by courier and allow up to 24 hours for delivery. And anyway that wouldn’t magically cause Valverde’s DNA to appear in one of those bags, after all police regularly manage to analyse dried up months-old scrapings.
Para 170: Not sure I get this one properly, but it seems that Valverde was claiming that taking EPO via a bag of blood plasma is in no way performance enhancing.
Para 174: In Fuentes’ coded charts, athlete Valv.(Piti) had an R beside his name for 7th April 2005. Elsewhere in Fuentes’ records an R was used as code for the administration of a re-injection. At that time Valverde was riding in the Vuelta al Pais Vasco. He claimed that he had been tested during that race and it had come out negative. He also claimed that there was no comparable E (for extraction) against Valv.(Piti) plus his roommate at the time (M. Arrieta) could testify that he didn’t get a blood transfusion then, plus he used to leave his hotel door open, so he couldn’t have been doping. Valverde also claimed that Puerto documents suggested that the blood bag 18 belonged to M. Angelo Vicioso. TAS then rebutted the Piti denials and just about everything else (Vicioso was no 16).
Para 180: depressing quote from Manzano – If you didn’t dope on Kelme you were kicked off the team.
Appeal rejected
Holy shit!
Annulled back to May 2004, l’ouch.
It will be interesting to see what the UCI decides about some of this. At the very least it could be an excellent example of why fucking with they authorities via silly procedural maneuvers when they have your ass red handed is a baaaaad idea that will come back to bite you.
That was very interesting
Thanks, Monty (and Gavia’s right. Should have had its own thread.). The process part is interesting to me, and I think it’s a completely legitimate part of any defense (just, for Valv.piti, it’s a loser in the end).
Curious about things like this "He claimed that he had been tested during that race and it had come out negative. " One would think that would be easily (dis)proved, no?
Would it matter either way?
First, there is still no test for autologous blood transfusion. That’s what the passport is trying to do: detect blood manipulation by studying changes in blood values. If the blood was his own and clean, a single test wouldn’t show anything.
And if it wasn’t clean (as in, the blood was laced with EPO as in the stored blood bag), the negative test(s) still likely are unimportant. Valverde supposedly was re-transfused on April 7, and Pais Vasco ended April 8 that year. He won stages on April 6 & 7, which is when he would likely have been tested. Since he finished in 45th place on the final stage, it’s unlikely he was tested then. If the transfusion occurred on April 7 after the post-stage testing, then both the tests on the 6th and 7th would have occurred before it happened, and so not found anything.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Slight correction: there were 2 stages April 8.
The second was a TT—Valverde finished 39th in that one, though, so still unlikely to be tested that day.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Yep
I’m reading it now, and I’ll write something in a bit. Very interesting to see the full decision, for sure.
But it won't be the same
without the herring. I skimmed through, taking care to avoid all the “the party of the first part..” stuff, so I’ve probably missed lots
lol
No, it definitely won’t be the same without the herring. And the badgers. I really liked the badgers.
What’s cool about it, though, is that it spells out all the stuff that we had hints of along the way in terms of how this case was carried out. Super interesting. Too bad they couldn’t be bothered to post it in English. Bah!
Have you ever come across
the full judgement from the CONI hearing last year?
No, I don't think I have.
Huh. That’s odd, because I would have thought I would have found that thing.
It should be here, http://www.coni.it/index.php?id=2379 I’m guessing, but the page is under construction. Bah!
"Pagina in ristrutturazione sulla base delle indicazioni che fornirà il Garante per la Privacy"
It looks like privacy laws have forced them to take stuff offline. The same thing happened to a French site which used to list all doping cases in cycling. Privacy laws/Rehabilitation of Offenders regulations meant that they couldn’t name anyone when the cases were over four or five years old. So now we have to use the German site which can still use names.
Process?
the shocking thing is just how shit Valverde’s defence was. All this “examination of my genetic profile is an invasion of my personal privacy” and “I left the hotel door open that night, honest” (Didn’t Kohl used to get his manager to come to the hotel with a blood bag, they’d go upstairs together for a chat and reinfuse for five or ten minutes). I really had hoped for at least one little nugget of substance
This is part of what I meant by my comment above about bs procedural tricks...
…since I generally agree with Sui that process stuff is meaningful. If you have one, it should be followed (though the more complex it is, the more unexpected paths it can take). It is important that TAS affirmed the process here, but my snark was directed toward the fact that Valv.piti’s ‘process’ claims were just such utter bs. Yes, b/c he made them they needed to get due consideration; but man, he didn’t have anything at all which was likely to survive scrutiny, to the point where this looks a lot like lawyers saying ‘sure, we’ll defend you, this’ll be profitable for us’ and valv being willing to pay them to delay the inevitable. Ugh.
What was that sound?
The collective sigh of the nine VDS teams that had him on their roster!
Racing for Victory and Free Beer!
one hopes
they knew the risk
"The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is." Edvald Boasson Hagen
*Clap* *Clap Clap Clap*
This thread is… something.
I leave you kidz alone, and now look what happens.
Priceless.
Herring!
Our run tonight was 8 miles. I’m so hungry I could almost eat the stuff.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Or
you could use it to catch a real fish.
"The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is." Edvald Boasson Hagen
Excuse me while I go dam up a river
I don’t even need the energy I’m doing it just to do it. Let’s see how your “real fish” like that?
Oh my. Quite the thread here.
I got a big laugh when we were accused of being anti-Contador.
"Awesome! is more about what gets fans excited than what’s harder to do." - Chris...
Oh darn, I missed that bit somehow!
But I did really enjoy the spontaneous generation of a cycling version of “Who’s on first?” that happened about part way in there.
I think Frinking said it best, holy smoke.
Whoa. Hang on!
Sorry for joining late, but have just read the entire epic thread. Monty’s post above: Annul all his results back to 2004?
That’s huuuge.
So who won the Vuelta last year then?
Perhaps this is a bad idea, but I feel compelled to try to set the record straight.
It’s likely we’re going to disagree forever, but I don’t like that maybe I have come in a pissed a bunch of people off in this community, so I’d like to clarify my thoughts above now that the dust has settled.
My assumptions/my stance that I would like to be clear of.
1. I think Valverde is not innocent.
2. I think AV has doped
3. I think doping riders deserve punishment including Valverde
4. I think the CAS/UCI/CONI desicions are awful.
5. I think that it is reasonable, given those caught, Manzano’s testimony, those not caught but admitted, that ~1995-2005+ 95%+ of riders doped.
6. I think it is fair to be frustrated with the Spanish cycling fed., but not to be ‘anti-Spanish’. Puerto was a Spanish investigation after all. Being anti-Spanish is just a form of hate. Italy, USA, Austria, Spain, etc. doping has affected all the countries.
7. Without the blood bag from Puerto, there is no case vs. Valverde.
8. The purpose of judicial punishment is reform.
My stance.
1. I understand that having a bag of blood somewhere, anywhere, is doping. I also feel that is it reasonable to make this logical induction. If the whole peleton was doping, then you couldn’t compete if you weren’t doping. This is re-inforced again, by Manzano’s quote highlighted by Monty:
Para 180: depressing quote from Manzano – If you didn’t dope on Kelme you were kicked off the team.
So, you either doped, or you found a different occupation. I don’t think the different team possibility existed then, cause I think all teams needed to dope to be competitive.
2. With the established you have two important details. First, Valverde may already be reformed at some point during his career from 2002 to today. Perhaps not, but the only reason we have to punish him is the Puerto evidence, which is considered doping as long as the blood bags exist, correct? but it can be seen as a ‘time-specific’ violation, relative to when he gave blood. The point is, he may have ridden clean during 2009 for example. Second, there is reasonable understanding that Valverde had to give this blood, because he was ‘forced’ to by his team/teams, doctors, managers…as was likely ever other cyclist, because that was/still is the culture of the sport. He may not have understood the repercussions (that he could have all of his results stripped back to 2004, the ‘beginning’ of his career, for example)m he may not of fully ‘understood’ the immenseness of what was going on, and even if he had, he may have had no choice but to participate…or become a car salesman.
3. The CAS decision is bad, IMHO, because it supports the UCI and CONI dealing with this in a vacuum. If we want/desire Valverde to be suspended and support his retroactive stripping of results back to 2004. Should we not want that for ALL dopers? Yes, that’s fair. Do we not believe that almost, if not all of the peleton was doping during the period of 1990ish to biological passport? We have no reason/evidence to believe otherwise. So then if what’s fair for Valverde is fair for everyone, then what happens to cycling history? It’s erased? We already see that. And this is because of some doctors, and because blood sat in a bag with a doctor. We don’t know when that started with AV and if/when it did/will stop.
AND, we have reason to believe that’s consistent WITH everyone.
Dealing with Valverde in a vacuum and making an example of him by trying to strip his results back to 2004 for this, doesn’t fix ANYTHING. It doesn’t assist reform, it will only drive the desire for cover-ups, plea-bargins, silly appeal delays to new heights.
If the wheel of justice is broken, this ruling just puts more weight on the wheel.
If the wheels of cycling are broken, this ruling just puts more weight on those wheels.
I do want a good justice system for cycling, but I don’t want what’s happening to Valverde to happen to everyone…so who’s wanting the truth to stay buried…me? How can I support that? So then how can I support it for Valverde? I don’t want to last 15-20 years+ of cycling to disappear from the books because of doping.
The rules need to be remade, the record set and everything new going forward, Valverde included. That’s it.
Oh by the way...
I doubt I will respond to this, for the simple reason that I really wish the giant argument that ensued yesterday didn’t happen in that fashion and I don’t want it to be re-ignited.
All power to you for trying to sort your thoughts out here ...
As someone with no really strong opinions on this matter, I read the thread with interest. It seems to me both you and others were frustrated at times, but it takes a lot here to piss people off. So don’t worry about it, dive right back in, although if it was me, i’d maybe try for a more light-hearted thread while you’re getting to know everyone.
Anyway, well done. You earned your ‘Blog Warrior’ badge yesterday ;)
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
So . . . . if driving under the influence of alcohol is a crime
and lots of people do it, even though you’re opposed to drunk driving, you think we shouldn’t punish someone that the police find driving drunk on New Year’s Eve because they only have the evidence of an open container and a breathalyzer (ok the example’s not precisely parallel), because everyone else was driving drunk on NY Eve and the police didn’t catch them?
Once you concede that Valverde competed in violation of WADA and CONI rules and that CONI’s acquisition of evidence was legit (especially given the obvious efforts of certain elements of the Spanish judicial system to deny access to the Puerto evidence, your argument winds up resting on suspect principles:
1. Do we REALLY know his intent? Maybe he was forced to . . . [And, part of why Ed and I were getting frustrated with your argumentation is that many people on this site agree with part of this argument: that’s why we want to encourage riders to NAME NAMES. Conversely, Valverde’s behavior at every step of this long-running process amounts to a pretty strong presumption that he knows exactly what he’s doing and thinks he can get away with it.
2. “All the other kids are/were doing it.”
3. If I assume that the purpose of sporting rules is not to reform the participants, but to provide a fair contest, your assumption of a reformist, rather than retributive framework for judicial activity is not necessarily a good fit: if an opposing power forward intentionally and flagrantly fouls my team’s point guard, I don’t want a technical foul and a player ejection to teach that power forward the error of his/her ways—I want the technical foul and ejection to redress the unfair act that has occurred.
Your line of reasoning might be appropriate with a neo-pro with no exposure to the doping culture; with Valverde? Nah, the evidence suggests that he knows precisely what he’s doing AND that he also knows that he has some pretty well-placed sources of support. (Note to doping athletes: it’s better to buy off a politician and judge or two than it is to retain Howard Jacobs).
I should have started off with a commendation for your re-thinking—problem is your reasoning here still seems to be based upon a characterization of the case that is not consistent with the known facts of the case.
I’m really biting my tongue, and I promised myself I wouldn’t get back into this again, but I do want to reply to your analogy only. I think there is a big distinction to be made that affects your drinking and driving analogy.
Three situations exist:
1. An entire population exists that drives a car, within this population, a smaller population exists, “many”, who drive under the influence. What actions can be taken to reduce this number from “many” to “few”, to “none”?
2. An entire population exists that drives a car, and within this population the majority, or even “most”, or “all” drive under the influence, however, we only have evidence of “many”. How can we address this situation when the mass seems to not fall within accordance of the rule.
3. An entire population exists that drives a car, and within this population that majority, “most” or “all” drive under the influence and “few” have even indicated that they were informed that if they didn’t do so they stood to lose there right to drive here or anywhere. Although this is likely the case, we only have evidence that “many” do so . How do we proceed with enforcement?
See the distinction? This isn’t the 5% murderers getting caught of the 8% of murders in Sweden. This is the 5% of murders getting caught of the “country” of murderers, or the 95-98% of the population.
Punishing one as an example…is not the example, because the others look at the larger number – the 95% as the example. The enforcement body, ignoring the indications, closing there eyes and plugging their ears, then using ALL the wrath they can muster on the “many” isn’t going to work, no matter how guilty the “many” are. It’s poor decision making.
Especially when...
there is little to no direct effects/pursuit for those " informing that if they didn’t do so they stood to lose there right to drive here or anywhere."
Again: I disagree with you because I don't think your assessment
comports well with reality.
Axiom 1. Resources are limited.
Axiom 2. Choose your battles.
Following (with truly unclear Spinozan argumentation) those axioms (which I take to describe the situation faced by CONI and WADA and any of these drug enforcement agencies—shoot, Floyd Landis, of all people, almost ran WADA into the ground with his legal procedures . . .); anyway, following these axioms, it makes sense to go after a high-profile, well-connected target like Valverde because of the message you send to his enablers.
See, I don’t think that CONI is really JUST going after Valverde here. You can see it in how Torri has pursued his cases for the last couple of years: he’s trying to expose the networks that make a DiLuca or a Ricco or a Basso et al possible. It makes sense to me to assume that he would have much preferred to ‘flip’ Valverde. But Valverde is supported by the entire freakin’ Spanish federation—up to and including parts of the judicial and executive branches, so Torri has had to settle for just sending a message that the status quo will be a little more difficult to maintain.
(And, as for your argumentation: strangely, the transformation of DUI offenses from a largely under-enforced and under-consquenced offense into a significant offense with significant consequences suggests that both enforcement approaches have to be pursued: until the ‘many’ learn—often times by a significant ‘exemplar’—that the offenders WILL be pursued, the behavior will continue.
For a good discussion of issues like this, see Foucault’s later lectures (Security, Territory, Population, for example . . .)
I've decided Foucault is so yesterday!
Not that that would have anything to do with our intimate relationship over the last month… or the fact that i hate seeing the light NOT go on for some students :)
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
oof, more brain muscles
Not sure that you should also shave your head though, seahorse. So jeez, now you’ve forced me to go and read stuff. I innocently came on to the interwebs expecting mindless entertainment, and this is what i get …
I'm blaming R Mc... i make it a rule not to do Foucault after 8pm ;)
But perhaps that proves why I don’t need to shave my head.
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
Security, Territory, Population
is like Foucault-lite: transcriptions of lectures from one of his last seminars.
He actually tells a joke or two . . .
A joke?!
This is hard to imagine.
And jokes or no, I’m still thinking it’s maybe not exactly bed time reading ;-)
You should have seen the look on my father's face
when my husband (then boyfriend) gave me a copy of Discipline and Punish for Christmas.
No, Dad, honest—it’s philosophy!
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
All I'm gonna say is
there’s a reason I married the guy.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Read some of the bios though...
…or better, Guibert’s “To the friend who did not save my life…” which may get the sense of Foucault even better. He was very definitely not a humorless guy.
This is deep
I love how this has become a transient philosophical discussion, props to ya for perseverence. However, i think this case is simpler than all of that. He got caught retroactively, as has been the case with some cyclists before him. He has been scapegoated, but not unnecessarily. His offenses stand no more in grandeur than his compatriots who went through the same regiment as him, however many of those cyclists have been dragged through the mud too. Can we ever know the real extent of the doping, no. If you have evidence on somebody, its best to act accordingly, even though its not fair to them, they should’ve understood illegal behavior is punishable, even if its not always caught and punished. Your examples prove the point that life isn’t fair, but morality should not be based upon statistics, it should be based upon a crime/punishment system, which has been enacted in this case. He did the crime, he’ll probably do two years time.
Oh, people here only get personal
over favourite brand of pickled herring and the like. Or Lebowski quotes.
The big problem
is that we had this “draw a line under everything, move forward clean” back in ‘99 after Festina. The problem was that some decided that the moment when everyone else gives up the dope is the moment they should go on to a super-duper programme. And the sports authorities seemed to stand on the side of the dopers, not the clean riders. Valverde’s not the only one who’s been punished. A lot of other riders got forced out when this first broke. And while Valverde has been earning millions on his bike, someone like Manzano who spoke up about what was happening has been digging holes for the minimum wage. Plus Valverde is just the first case. The Italians took samples from nearly fifty blood bags. As it has now been established that just having a bag of blood in Fuentes’ fridge is a doping violation, and that if you rode in Italy while having one then CONI can act against you, don’t be surprised to see a lot more cases opened in the near future. And that is before we get to the 6,000 odd pages of documentation.
This is the most important thing I have read in a month
we had this "draw a line under everything, move forward clean" back in ‘99 after Festina. The problem was that some decided that the moment when everyone else gives up the dope is the moment they should go on to a super-duper programme
This is why I think the CAS decision was such BS, as I first stated. Puerto, will make Festina look like a tea party, if it hasn’t already, and when riders feel threatened to the level that Valverde is going to get r8ped to, they will protect themselves, not the sport. Genetic doping is already here, it’s no future myth, the olympics have had it and it’s essentially UNdetectable. Armstrong himself says it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4odJP-Zuw He’s not very convincing, but he’s correct about this:
Quote: "Genetic doping and things we’ll never detect, which will be unfortunate because you’ll just have to look at the event and go “This is entertainment” I don’t care how they did it, “I’m just being entertained.”
So, by taking the wrong (IMHO) approach, and giving a suspension to Valverde, that I can honestly say I don’t want to see happen to anyone else, this will move all the riders to the “super-dee-duper-duper doping program” and it’ll all be over and nothing will be real. So if I don’t want that for the other riders, I can’t support it for Valverde, and I’ve always said, AV was doping and IS guilty, just like everyone else. That doesn’t mean the UCI/WADA/CONI/the federations don’t have to get their shit together before it’s too late.
I very much agree….this IS the BIG problem, which is why I was arguing against it.
Raped?
Er, no. He lost a legal case and got suspended from racing for two years. Quite a different thing, in my view.
Please
I don’t want to get into yesterday’s defending semantics arguments, or picking at one word arguments. I meant that as a very very very stiff punishment. ie. losing all results back to 2004. It had nothing to do with whether it’s correct to punish Valverde or not.
If you don't want to argue semantics
be more careful with your words, especially in these types of discussions. You have to admit you’re bringing it on yourself. Equating AV’s situation to getting r8ped shows your bias on the subject.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Then choose your words and metaphors carefully.
I’m a writer. I take words seriously. You should too.
How does this get us anywhere or help?
Why do you feel the need to imply I don’t take my words seriously? or tell me that I have to admit I’m bringing this on myself? Or try to tell me what my bias is? I know what my bias with this topic.
I choose to assume you all have the best of intentions in these conversations, but that’s becoming increasingly more challenging for me by the minute. So I’ll go away. I chose the wrong word, and we can choose to let that slide, and then I explained that I chose the wrong word, and we can choose to let that slide.
because equating something as ultimately trivial as a sporting ban...
…with something as ultimately serious as rape amounts to trivializing rape, which is offensive.
Stop it.
Uuu....
I would never intentionally trivialize rape. In fact, the reason why I wrote it r8pe, is because it denotes slang, kinda like pwned or other misspellings on the internerd. If that touched a sensitive note on anyone, then I’m sorry, but language interpretation is a two-way street, including both me and you. If you want me to say I’m sorry I can. I dunno…is our goal a thousand comments? Or just 500 needless ones?
You know, this is a global forum, not everyone on here has a first language as English, and not everyone a second language at a high level of comprehension either. We’re in a forum, not a church, and understanding is important in both.
Again, if my slang was offensive…then I apologize. I guess I’m the one getting r8….err pwned.
Good you didn't mean to do that...
…but if so, why did you suddenly start arguing with Gav when she pointed out it was the wrong word. Easier to just say ‘oops I didn’t mean that’ and let it die.
As for language, we’re pretty patient here about language levels. But if you’re going to argue about something, what you say is all we’ve got to go on in order to understand what you think. So some care, or at least willingness to try to clarify, is necessary. It doesn’t help to ask people to disregard what is said. If we do that, how are we going to have a conversation?
Patience, this is what I need is patience.
why did you suddenly start arguing with Gav when she pointed out it was the wrong word. Easier to just say ‘oops I didn’t mean that’ and let it die.
I agree that what I write represents what I think which is subject to you reading it.
I had described what I meant by the controversial slang immediately there after, to clarify. I didn’t argue over it. I then asked why imply I don’t take what I write seriously.
Assuming the other person has the best of intentions with what they say works for me, and I’m trying, until it seems like people don’t have the best of intentions.
are you saying...
valverde should not be prosecuted for fear that dopers will start using less detectable doping products?
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
then what do you mean by...
“So, by taking the wrong (IMHO) approach, and giving a suspension to Valverde, that I can honestly say I don’t want to see happen to anyone else, this will move all the riders to the "super-dee-duper-duper doping program" and it’ll all be over and nothing will be real.”
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I just mean
punish the guy, but do it differently, somehow new…and improved. I don’t know how, and even if I did, it wouldn’t matter anyway. I just don’t want a future of the sport where everything gets so screwed up that I can’t believe anything anymore or then I have to watch WWF wrestling or something.
I dunno, give them all amnesty and then for Valverde, slap him in front of his mother…I dunno! make him ride without a seatpost, no air in his tires for 5 years…I just don’t like the precedent of this ruling!
Now . . . these are punishments I can respect
or . . . how about make him ride with his dog’s blood?
LOOK, forget it
I’m outta here. I feel like we are ten seconds away from this whole thing exploding again. I’m not sure why on Earth I feel compelled to have this conversation. I figured that a group of like-minded cycling fans would be concerned about the future of their sport…and I see that you are…but also that we aren’t like-minded. If I cannot make myself clear when I try, or you don’t want to try to assume best intentions in the conversation, then why have the conversation?
I obviously cannot articulate what I am thinking, so let’s just say I’m wrong and don’t worry about it, and I’ll chat about MSR or other things. I don’t want to argue about this anymore.
And yet somehow we find you endearing...
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
Wouldn't ot be awesome cool..
To dress like ABBA and still have Swedsih girls around you?! That country has to rock..
if you're into 60 yr old swedish girls
dressing like abba did my still score you some points.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I just tried to integrate the Best of Sweden with the worst..
Let me rephrase..
I even ABBA, with their style, can have so many woman.. I would be a happy men living there
there's only one swedish girl i want around me
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
wait, is tiger's wife swedish?
if so, make that two.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Nothing is exploding
chill man we have no bad feelings towards you, all I see is a debate and yes you are quite outnumbered but I find it quite fascinating(the conversation).
Proud member of Thuggetz nation.
actually, you're making more sense
Look, I grew up watching the NFL and was floored when I read Pete Gent’s North Dallas Forty, which blew away just about every illusion I had about the Dallas Cowboys.
I made my peace with a sport that tolerates all sorts of medical interventions (most of which would not pass muster under WADA, which is why NFL et al refuse to sign on).
But what puzzles me is this: is it the fault of the athlete or of the spectator if the spectator’s expectation for a “clean” performance can not be squared with the physical demands of the activity? I.e. if I WANT racing ala Pantani, and won’t watch the race, buy the t-shirt, or fly to Montelupone without THAT sort of racing—and the only way to provide that sort of racing is with a 52 hematocrit—just who is the hypocrite in that scenario?
(I suppose the better example here would be how fan expectations about baseball shifted during the ‘steroid era’ in baseball, but I’ve never liked baseball . . .).
So, just possibly, Iccky Ricco has been correct about pro cycling: almost since its formation as a promotional venture for capitalist enterprises, it has been rife with doping, and to see it as exemplifying deCoubertainian ideals is based on a misunderstanding of what cycling HAS been based on.
Shifting that model won’t be easy . . .
As R Mc said...
…I agree with part of your sentiment, namely that it’s problematic when only some of a much larger group of perpetrators are getting punished for something they did. That problem, however, is not a legal one, but rather an enforcement problem. And yes, I am aware that laws which cannot be consistently enforced are, ultimately, very problematic laws because if they’re enforced at all, they lead to inconsistent and preferential regimes.
That said, I think most of this argument is misplaced insofar as you are objecting to the TAS decision. The TAS decision is quite correct. Based on the existing law, in every instance, it is well and clearly reasoned. If TAS had decided to discard the existing law and do what they thought was ‘right’ instead, that would be vastly more arbitrary than enforcing it in what is, unfortunately, one of a relatively small number of cases they’re actually in a position to bring. So I don’t see the value of arguing with the decision on the grounds that it was incorrect or unfair. It wasn’t.
Do I think that we might well need a very different enforcement regime, and that this would entail rather different rules / laws than the ones currently in place? Yes, I do. But I think you have to separate the desire for a different regime from the recognition that we need to see the regime we have enforced correctly and consistently. Failure to enforce the laws that have been on the books is a huge part of how we got into the mess we’re in. Any step toward enforcement, especially against high level riders, is a positive step.
To me this reads as frustration
Frustration that going after Valv.piti will do nothing to fix the wider problem cycling and that the system isn’t working
I have a lot of sympathy for that sentiment. However I’m not sure abolving Valverde will make they system better.
I’ll leave it there and – as others have said – good on your for persisting. While I don’t agree it’s good to have your view challenged and to refine your arguments
by thebongolian on Mar 18, 2010 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions
+1
Always glad to be in places where “discussions” don’t devolve into “flame wars”.
The lack of name calling and insults is a credit to this community.
Bravo Us.
Oh and Chapeau Lawrence, Being the only voice shouting in the wind is hard. I don’t agree with you but I admire your tenacity, persistence, and composure. Good discussions require two sides. I am sure you are not alone or not entirely alone in your views.
'When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning' - Dr. Reiner Knizia
by bought with blood on Mar 17, 2010 10:38 AM EDT reply actions
are we going to stop so close to 500 comments?
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Christ, the comments on that piece are depressing.
I know it’s unwise to generalize but there seems to be a rather large difference in attitude towards dopers.
Update of sorts
apparently, alejandro is going to prove his innocence.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-vows-to-prove-his-innocence
maybe he should have focused on that earlier instead of trying to get off on a technicality. i’m not a lawyer, but i would assume that one would start with the defense most likely to work, and if that fails, you try the less likely ones. which would indicate to me that his innocence defense is probably not very strong, but that’s just pure conjecture on my part.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
¡Viva la Vuelta!
Celebrate La Vuelta a España at Podium Cafe.
Stop by each day for Vuelta updates, live race chat, post-race happy hour, and more.
Visit our Vuelta section for all the latest stories.
Mountains. Many much mountains!
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
