Hoooooraaayyyy!!

thecyclist said:

It's 45 days. The UCI didn't use that rule, they said it was too harsh and that they would get rid of it at their next meeting. But what are the chances that he was the only rider to violate this rule? For all we know the whole top 10 could be guilty of this.

There is plenty of dirt on Valverde and I don't agree that his case is somehow outdated. He could have confessed back then, but chose not to, so whatever consequences it will have in the future it's his own fault.

Also if he is now able to win the TDF, it's hard to believe he is not doing the same thing as back then.

By the way the shoebox thing was also several years old, yet I still believe it added fuel to the whole thing. Fans were booing etc. so ASO had to get rid of him.

I seriously don't think the whole top 10 missed a test within 45 days of the Tour. That aside, the point is that ASO still has to find a plausible excuse to kick out a rider. They can't simply chuck out someone because the fans are booing. And if they say that they are kicking out Piti because he hasn't confessed in OP, they will really look like fools. It is not a question of whether the rider in question is doping or not - unless they test positive, mere suspicion of doping cannot be used as an excuse to kick out someone in the middle of or near the end of the Tour. An excuse has to be stronger than that.

thecyclist said:

So it's ok that they pick and choose who to throw out so that they can get the winner they want? Then it's more of a popularity contest than a sports event. And we are not talking about riders who already served their suspensions like Millar.

I don't get your point here.

ASO are hypocrites if Valverde get's the yellow jersey (and is in a position where it looks like he could win) and they don't get rid of him like they did with Rasmussen. There is and was more dirt on Piti than there was on Rasmussen.

You are forgetting that Astana was banned because of to many AAF!
The choice of ASO had be done on real facts.

My points was there. If you had brought enough proofs to ASO about Puerto, sure they would have barred a lot of Puertistes.

TheDarkLord said:

I seriously don't think the whole top 10 missed a test within 45 days of the Tour.

Maybe not but they could have and we wouldn't know about it. I doubt Rasmussen was the only one.
Also this was not the reason that was given for throwing him out anyway.

TheDarkLord said:

That aside, the point is that ASO still has to find a plausible excuse to kick out a rider. They can't simply chuck out someone because the fans are booing. And if they say that they are kicking out Piti because he hasn't confessed in OP, they will really look like fools. It is not a question of whether the rider in question is doping or not - unless they test positive, mere suspicion of doping cannot be used as an excuse to kick out someone in the middle of or near the end of the Tour. An excuse has to be stronger than that.

They will look like bigger fools if they let him win. Being involved in puerto is still a big deal. Do you think ASO would like to see Mancebo, Sevilla and Botero at the Tour? I doubt it.

If the Valv. (Piti) thing causes a stir at the TDF, then ASO can just put preasure on CdE to take Valverde out of the race. That's what they did with Rabobank last year.
Or even better prevent him from starting in the first place.

I think TDL brings up very valid points. The powers that be have got to deal with information about wrongdoing when it comes out. But they are hamstrung by legal issues. Everyone can be 95% sure that Valverde was a Fuentes doping client, but unless you can prove it in court (and the Spanish authorities release the evidence) it's still conjecture. If they start banning riders because they think it's "likely" they are dopers... then it just becomes a mess... and threatens the rights of all cyclists to exercise their trade without prejudice and kangaroo court judgments.

A similar hypothetical analogy would have occurred if the OJ Simpson trial had happened in the middle of OJ's football career. Assuming there was no civil case to muddy the picture... after being acquitted of murder... the NFL would have had to witness him playing and starring on the football field while perhaps 80% of America thought he was a cold-blooded murderer. To ban him from the NFL would have incited litigation from OJ accusing them of groundless discrimination.

So they have to let Valverde ride IMO... unless fresh evidence comes out that gives them an excuse to take action.

If Valverde is banned on circumstantial linking to Fuentes... we could perhaps ban Cadel Evans similarly based on circumstantial evidence that he worked with Ferrari... though I realise that Fuentes has more legal evidence of doping activities. There are a host of other riders the authorities could ban on reasonable suspicion. IMO, Rass was removed last year based on evidence of an infraction of a rule and a lie.

poulidor said:

You are forgetting that Astana was banned because of to many AAF!
The choice of ASO had be done on real facts.

My points was there. If you had brought enough proofs to ASO about Puerto, sure they would have barred a lot of Puertistes.

I don't know what you are talking about with Astana? The Leipheimer thing in my first post? I was just making fun of the people who say Contador's Giro win would force ASO to reconsider and stuff like that, forgetting that the reason they were not invited had nothing to do with how good or bad a team they were.

And most of the known puerto riders are not starting the Tour. Valverde is, probably because some clowns in Spain keep insisting he isn't involved, but it's obvious to everyone that they are just trying to protect him. The evidence against him is there and hopefully some journalists will bring up puerto if he get's in the yellow jersey.

thecyclist said:

And most of the known puerto riders are not starting the Tour. Valverde is, probably because some clowns in Spain keep insisting he isn't involved, but it's obvious to everyone that they are just trying to protect him. The evidence against him is there and hopefully some journalists will bring up puerto if he get's in the yellow jersey.

It isn't profound of me to state this obvious point.. but you highlight one of the main lingering problems in the war against doping in cycling. Because so many within the authority structure (probably not just UCI... but the national federations and even the race owners) have a complicit past in the hiding of the real picture of doping... they are afraid that a complete clean-out of everyone will end up with people all talking under oath and implicating their own nefarious involvement. This coupled with their belief and fear that... if the true picture of doping is revealed... cycling would die overnight politically and financially, means that they are fighting the war half-heartedly... trying to PR manage the battle and make token arbitrary sacrifices.

The net outcome of this is inconsistent treatment of cyclists. It looks real bad to any observer who can see further than the news headlines.

The cyclists have their heads on the chopping block all the time... but the authorities are almost unaccountable to anyone.

I am fully behind the cyclists. I think doping is real bad... and kills people and the dreams of honest cyclists who want to ride clean. I really would love to see cycling clean and watch races confident that the doping controls ensured a clean sport. But I also think that pro cyclists have had little choice in the past other than to dope... if they wanted to express their natural talent on the world stage. Doping is a systemic problem in many sports... cycling especially IMO due to it's heavy reliance on biomechanics. But the athletes are the lambs slaughtered when they had no real choice IMO but to walk into the slaughter-house if they wanted to continue their passion.

Crankyfeet said:

I think TDL brings up very valid points. The powers that be have got to deal with information about wrongdoing when it comes out. But they are hamstrung by legal issues. Everyone can be 95% sure that Valverde was a Fuentes doping client, but unless you can prove it in court (and the Spanish authorities release the evidence) it's still conjecture. If they start banning riders because they think it's "likely" they are dopers... then it just becomes a mess... and threatens the rights of all cyclists to exercise their trade without prejudice and kangaroo court judgments.

A similar hypothetical analogy would have occurred if the OJ Simpson trial had happened in the middle of OJ's football career. Assuming there was no civil case to muddy the picture... after being acquitted of murder... the NFL would have had to witness him playing and starring on the football field while perhaps 80% of America thought he was a cold-blooded murderer. To ban him from the NFL would have incited litigation from OJ accusing them of groundless discrimination.

So they have to let Valverde ride IMO... unless fresh evidence comes out that gives them an excuse to take action.

If Valverde is banned on circumstantial linking to Fuentes... we could perhaps ban Cadel Evans similarly based on circumstantial evidence that he worked with Ferrari... though I realise that Fuentes has more legal evidence of doping activities. There are a host of other riders the authorities could ban on reasonable suspicion. IMO, Rass was removed last year based on evidence of an infraction of a rule and a lie.

if I am clean, and I am Cadel Evans calibre, on the cusp on winning. I blow the lid, I create havoc, I call Valv.(piti) for what he is. I don't let him beat me at the Tour, if he is doping.

These guys are alpha male pro sportsman. They don't ride to lose. They ride to win. Some might suck wheels cos they see it as their best chance of winning.

But if you can get in a [censored] fight to win, why can't you use the press, and take it to Valverde and Contador, and Rasmussen.

Evans is close to winning the Tour, he does not have to worry about making enemies, he only has to look for the wheel of his main threat, and gun the tts. He can create havoc in the press, and really hurt those guys, and turn up the heat.

Yeah, it won't really endear him to the peloton, but if the French peloton is mostly clean, and the peloton getting cleaner, he will not be run out of town like Bassons.

They guy can win the Tour. Use the power, take the fight into the PR sphere, off the bike. Pressure the guys in the media, get the lawyers in, hurt them.

Ofcourse, it won't happen. Evans manager is Rominger ofcourse. And Evans may probably has the same skeletons.

thecyclist said:

I don't know what you are talking about with Astana? The Leipheimer thing in my first post? I was just making fun of the people who say Contador's Giro win would force ASO to reconsider and stuff like that, forgetting that the reason they were not invited had nothing to do with how good or bad a team they were.

And most of the known puerto riders are not starting the Tour. Valverde is, probably because some clowns in Spain keep insisting he isn't involved, but it's obvious to everyone that they are just trying to protect him. The evidence against him is there and hopefully some journalists will bring up puerto if he get's in the yellow jersey.

thecyclist, a French bank is paying over 2 million Euros into Valverde's coffers.

The ASO also protect the interests of their national companies, not just their riders and teams. A major bank is potentially alot more threatening to be offside, than Astana.

thunder said:

thecyclist, a French bank is paying over 2 million Euros into Valverde's coffers.

The ASO also protect the interests of their national companies, not just their riders and teams. A major bank is potentially alot more threatening to be offside, than Astana.

Very interesting point.

Crankyfeet said:

Very interesting point.

that is what is the stand-out anomaly.

If the French are so vehemently anti-doping, why do they tolerate a bank sponsoring a Spanish team, and undercutting their riders.

Yeah, Caisse were supposedly 50/50, but they have Brard, and one other guy whos name escapes me, yeah, Portal, Nicholas Portal. Both good timetriallers, and cobbled classics riders.

But, the French Fed, and the ASO could easily lend influence, wield influence, leverage their power and tell them to either have a testing program which can minimise their doping, like Damsgaard, or dont sponsor a bloody Spanish team full of dopers.

thunder said:

that is what is the stand-out anomaly.

If the French are so vehemently anti-doping, why do they tolerate a bank sponsoring a Spanish team, and undercutting their riders.

Yeah, Caisse were supposedly 50/50, but they have Brard, and one other guy whos name escapes me, yeah, Portal, Nicholas Portal. Both good timetriallers, and cobbled classics riders.

But, the French Fed, and the ASO could easily lend influence, wield influence, leverage their power and tell them to either have a testing program which can minimise their doping, like Damsgaard, or dont sponsor a bloody Spanish team full of dopers.

They have the Spanish/Banesto legacy (who were sponsors as recently as 2003)... but since they took over as lead sponsor in 2005 from Illes Balears... have they been gradually converting the roster to more French riders? Or do you think they are retaining their Spanish riders for doping reasons?

Crankyfeet said:

They have the Spanish/Banesto legacy (who were sponsors as recently as 2003)... but since they took over as lead sponsor in 2005 from Illes Balears... have they been gradually converting the roster to more French riders? Or do you think they are retaining their Spanish riders for doping reasons?

they only have got Brard and Portal in terms of riders who can perform at a Protour level and get results. I don't mean wins, I mean some jersey representation in either classifications or the end results.

They may have a young guy Passeron, or he might be at Agrituble or Saunier. Forget.

No, when Caisse came in, they bought about one third to a quarter of the roster as semi-competent French guys. I dont think they were a major part of the roster in terms of being critical, only critical in terms of financing.

As I said, Brard and Portal are the only two guys I know on the roster without checking it out. I would know all the riders no doubt, but I cannot recall any profile riders without looking at the squad.

thecyclist said:

They will look like bigger fools if they let him win. Being involved in puerto is still a big deal. Do you think ASO would like to see Mancebo, Sevilla and Botero at the Tour? I doubt it.

If the Valv. (Piti) thing causes a stir at the TDF, then ASO can just put preasure on CdE to take Valverde out of the race. That's what they did with Rabobank last year.
Or even better prevent him from starting in the first place.

Did ASO look like fools when they let AC, who is also linked to Puerto, win the Tour last year? The same logic applies to Valverde.

Crankyfeet said:

I think TDL brings up very valid points. The powers that be have got to deal with information about wrongdoing when it comes out. But they are hamstrung by legal issues. Everyone can be 95% sure that Valverde was a Fuentes doping client, but unless you can prove it in court (and the Spanish authorities release the evidence) it's still conjecture. If they start banning riders because they think it's "likely" they are dopers... then it just becomes a mess... and threatens the rights of all cyclists to exercise their trade without prejudice and kangaroo court judgments.

A similar hypothetical analogy would have occurred if the OJ Simpson trial had happened in the middle of OJ's football career. Assuming there was no civil case to muddy the picture... after being acquitted of murder... the NFL would have had to witness him playing and starring on the football field while perhaps 80% of America thought he was a cold-blooded murderer. To ban him from the NFL would have incited litigation from OJ accusing them of groundless discrimination.

So they have to let Valverde ride IMO... unless fresh evidence comes out that gives them an excuse to take action.

They apparently weren't able to throw out Rasmussen last year either but they put pressure on Rabobank and made them do it. Rabobank didn't have to prove in court that he lied to them.

I'm not so sure they wouldn't be able to get rid of Valverde if they wanted to.

But they are inviting his team and don't seem to have a problem with him. So they are not doing as much to get a clean Tour (and non-controversial winner) as they are letting on. I think they won't care until/unless the Valv. (Piti) thing causes hysteria like Rasmussen last year. But that probably won't happen since Valverde appears to be more popular.

Quoted post said:

If Valverde is banned on circumstantial linking to Fuentes... we could perhaps ban Cadel Evans similarly based on circumstantial evidence that he worked with Ferrari... though I realise that Fuentes has more legal evidence of doping activities. There are a host of other riders the authorities could ban on reasonable suspicion. IMO, Rass was removed last year based on evidence of an infraction of a rule and a lie.

There is evidence linking Valverde to actual doping and a bag of his blood with EPO in it. So he is not just linked to a doctor like Evans.

thunder said:

thecyclist, a French bank is paying over 2 million Euros into Valverde's coffers.

The ASO also protect the interests of their national companies, not just their riders and teams. A major bank is potentially alot more threatening to be offside, than Astana.

Yeah you are likely right. Another reason why they probably won't do anything.

TheDarkLord said:

Did ASO look like fools when they let AC, who is also linked to Puerto, win the Tour last year? The same logic applies to Valverde.

Yeah I think so. They said they wanted a "beautiful winner" but after getting rid of Rasmussen they just got another controversial winner instead.

But it's not really the same, because if we look at what has come out so far, there is much more on Valverde.

thecyclist said:

Yeah I think so. They said they wanted a "beautiful winner" but after getting rid of Rasmussen they just got another controversial winner instead.

But it's not really the same, because if we look at what has come out so far, there is much more evidence against Valverde.

You are confusing evidence and clues probably, but in the 2 cases you are false... Until 2006 for the 3 named (Rass, Contador and Valverde) we can easily say that they doped.
On 2007 TDF, the vast majority of cycling fans has few doubts about the doping of Rassmussen and Contador, but Valverde seems to be cleaner that the 2 guys.

thecyclist said:

They apparently weren't able to throw out Rasmussen last year either but they put pressure on Rabobank and made them do it. Rabobank didn't have to prove in court that he lied to them.

Yes, but Rabobank was in the wrong thanks to that rule, and IMO, that's the only reason why there were able to yank him out. And they will probably pay a price for it too, since one cannot deny in the end that it was kind of shady.

thecyclist said:

I'm not so sure they wouldn't be able to get rid of Valverde if they wanted to.

But they are inviting his team and don't seem to have a problem with him. So they are not doing as much to get a clean Tour (and non-controversial winner) as they are letting on. I think they won't care until/unless the Valv. (Piti) thing causes hysteria like Rasmussen last year. But that probably won't happen since Valverde appears to be more popular.

There is evidence linking Valverde to actual doping and a bag of his blood with EPO in it. So he is not just linked to a doctor like Evans.

But there is a timeline to follow too. I think it is too late to use OP, etc. as an excuse to ban Valverde now. Just to be clear, I'm not referring to ethics here - more to whether ASO can realistically keep him out of the race (now that they have invited the team).

poulidor said:

You are confusing evidence and clues probably, but in the 2 cases you are false...

A bag of blood is evidence if you ask me.

Quoted post said:

Until 2006 for the 3 named (Rass, Contador and Valverde) we can easily say that they doped.
On 2007 TDF, the vast majority of cycling fans has few doubts about the doping of Rassmussen and Contador, but Valverde seems to be cleaner that the 2 guys.

I wouldn't count on Valverde being clean.

TheDarkLord said:

Yes, but Rabobank was in the wrong thanks to that rule, and IMO, that's the only reason why there were able to yank him out. And they will probably pay a price for it too, since one cannot deny in the end that it was kind of shady.

The rule about missing a test in the 45 days before a GT? I think that's mostly the UCI's responsibility. But it was not the reason they gave for throwing him out anyway. The reason they gave was that he lied to the team about his whereabouts.

If Rabobank did know where he was, then it just shows that they won't shy away from kicking a rider out and fabricating some reason for doing so.

They may pay a price now, if Rasmussen wins the lawsuit, but had they refused to take him out I doubt they would be at the Tour this year.

Rasmussen also has to prove they knew, so he might not win the lawsuit even if he is telling the truth about Rabobank knowing where he was.

TheDarkLord said:

But there is a timeline to follow too. I think it is too late to use OP, etc. as an excuse to ban Valverde now. Just to be clear, I'm not referring to ethics here - more to whether ASO can realistically keep him out of the race (now that they have invited the team).

I know I said it would be even better if they prevented him from starting but my main point was that they will look like/are hypocrites if they let him win the race with this doping cloud hanging over him. They don't seem to have much of a problem with dopers winning as long as it doesn't bring too many negative headlines and such.

But if his involvement in Puerto causes enough trouble I think they will try to get rid of him. ASO and/or CdE could say that they got a hold of information that they didn't have before and use this as an excuse. Of course they won't do this unprovoked. Only if necesary.