# Valverde Doping Outrage



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

So, I ask, why isn’t there labile exaggerated outrage about the idea that Valverde is dirty? He’s killing pure climbers, out sprinting Sagan... He’s 38 and coming off a brutal injury. Oh, wait... and he’s a doper. Actually and uncontroversially caught and banned. Doper. I’d argue that his performance in this Vuelta is far more suspicious and atypical than Froome at the Giro. But no 10 page long thread on it? Or is it only Chris Froome that we are outraged by, even when he makes up most of his time descending? I guess I’m just trying to understand the zeitgeist...


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

known doper, known doping DS, from a really fishy team (Movistar). At 38, riding in the break, going against top sprinters (and beating them), out-climbing many climbing specialist including his supposed GC man, and then going real hard in the TT.

Gee Sky is the real problem here. . .


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Did not Valverde already serve a two year suspension? If he tests positive again, he will likely get suspended again if not a lifetime ban. Sometimes the system works...


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

For me, the difference between Froome and Valverde this year is that one failed a test and the other hasn’t. Valverde’s success this late in his career is definitely suspicious but I have to put it at like a Chris Horner level since there isn’t any recent evidence to confirm he is cheating.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Rashadabd said:


> For me, the difference between Froome and Valverde this year is that one failed a test and the other hasn’t. Valverde’s success this late in his career is definitely suspicious but I have to put it at like a Chris Horner level since there isn’t any recent evidence to confirm he is cheating.



Well, the real difference, is that Vuelta doesn't have anywhere near the stature/attention of Tour de France....unless you're in spain.

Every 12 months, the racing boards everywhere pickup traffic/membership as people talk TdF...and then go back to lurker mode for 12 months.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

At this point... I'm just tired.

Valverde has always been there in the mix, across a variety of races. He's a consistent performer, which points to a verifiable talent or effective doping. Some would say both.

It's kinda obvious that there's still doping going on at the highest levels. Not at the levels of the late 1990s/2000s, but it's still going on. Micro-dosing and any number of other methods to achieve "marginal gains" are how it's done now.

Do I think the sport is covering it up? Not really. Even though they would like to avoid another scandal, I just think the dopers are just ahead of the testers. It's only when the dopers get sloppy or desperate that they get caught. Until we have a positive test and a case strong enough to make it stick will we know that this guy or that guy is dirty.

Until that day, it would be a piti to burn yourself out worrying about it. There's really nothing you can do about it.

...and honestly, I'm just glad to see Sky getting crushed in a GT for a change.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Alaska Mike said:


> Until that day, it would be a piti to burn yourself out worrying about it. There's really nothing you can do about it.


I see what you did there. . .


----------



## harryman (Nov 14, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> So, I ask, why isn’t there labile exaggerated outrage about the idea that Valverde is dirty?


Sadly, I've given up caring, and watching. I think all, or almost all of the top guys are still doping, some better than others, especially for grand tours.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Coolhand said:


> I see what you did there. . .


I don't know how spell-check didn't catch that honest mistake. I'm usually much better at proofreading.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Alaska Mike said:


> I don't know how spell-check didn't catch that honest mistake. I'm usually much better at proofreading.


Too bad, I thought that was pretty funny:



> Alejandro Valverde has been linked by documentary and DNA evidence to the Operación Puerto, a blood-doping affair which erupted in May 2006 against doctor Eufemiano Fuentes and a number of accomplices. It uncovered doping products, bags of blood and human plasma, and code names that appeared to link top athletes, including up to 60 cyclists, to a highly organized system of doping, which relied heavily on blood transfusions.[69]
> 
> Valverde was not initially linked in the investigation, but documents from Madrid's Court 31 linked Valverde to a single bag of human plasma of the 211 total bags of blood and plasma seized in the investigation. The bag of human plasma was labelled with the codes Valv, Piti and 18.[70][71] In 2007 Valverde was banned by the International Cycling Union (UCI) from competing in the UCI Road World Championships in Stuttgart but Valverde was cleared by the Court of Arbitration for Sport to compete at the championships.[72] Dick Pound, World Anti-Doping Agency president, said the CAS decision did not mean that Valverde was no longer a suspect.[73]
> 
> ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_Valverde


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

There does appear to be a curious asymmetry in the reactions of some high profile posters to Valverde's unbelievable performance - no calls for urine and/or eggs to be thrown at him and his team, no calls for other teams to take action against Movistar - all of which such actions I would condemn but it is odd.

The Vuelta has a history of some odd results e.g. Cobo and Horner to name just two recent (ish) winners.

At least today, Valverde didn't outsprint Sagan - probably saving his legs to outclimb the dedicated climbers in the next few stages.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Coolhand said:


> Too bad, I thought that was pretty funny


My sarcasm doesn't always translate without emojis. I admit, it was intentional.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Let's be honest, the Vuelta this year doesn't have the big guns like the Tour and Giro did. It's basically up-and-comers, riders prepping for Worlds, and riders/teams desperate for a result that are on display. It makes for a wonderfully unpredictable race. Breakaways stick here. Riders climb up and plummet down the rankings every day. The metronomic and methodical TDF is boring in comparison. This is throw caution to the wind and go for it racing, and it's much more interesting to me.

You know what? I love that the best GC rider for Sky is almost 10 minutes back. They haven't sucked the air out of the room for a change.

I don't want any rider attacked physically on or off the bike. Well, maybe Lance, but that's about it. I think it's a disgusting display, but I understand that many feel the governing body isn't doing enough to discourage doping, so they express their displeasure more directly. Doesn't make it right, but I can see where they're coming from. The problem is, professional cycling has never been that "noble" in this regard, so nobody is protecting its "honor" with such displays.

Froome popped hot and got off. Many of us think it's because the UCI didn't want a protracted fight, the negative press that would come with it, or the chance of losing a well-financed, stable team from the roster. In other words, the UCI blinked and overnight the number of "asthmatics" in the peloton tripled.

Valverde got caught with his blood where it shouldn't have been, which I agree was a far more serious offense. They didn't catch him through testing, and they haven't caught him since. If he would have had "suspicious" values indicated, I think it would have leaked by now. All you can point at is a sustained period of performance since his sanction, into his late 30s. It's curious, and the cycling mags use euphemisms like "evergreen" to describe it, but it's no smoking gun. These days, even a positive test isn't a smoking gun...

Until there is one, they ride.


----------



## El Scorcho (Dec 14, 2005)

coldash said:


> There does appear to be a curious asymmetry in the reactions of some high profile posters to Valverde's unbelievable performance - no calls for urine and/or eggs to be thrown at him and his team, no calls for other teams to take action against Movistar - all of which such actions I would condemn but it is odd.


Maybe it's just because he's a likable guy. Froome is unwatchable, and unlikable, clean or dirty it makes no difference, I can't stand him.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

El Scorcho said:


> Maybe it's just because he's a likable guy. Froome is unwatchable, and unlikable, clean or dirty it makes no difference, I can't stand him.


All in your humble opinion, I’m sure. I don’t find either of them particularly agreeable or disagreeable. If you want to support throwing piss at people you can’t stand then that says more about you than them


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Alaska Mike said:


> My sarcasm doesn't always translate without emojis. I admit, it was intentional.


Well done then- enjoy the free rep!


----------



## El Scorcho (Dec 14, 2005)

coldash said:


> All in your humble opinion, I’m sure. I don’t find either of them particularly agreeable or disagreeable. If you want to support throwing piss at people you can’t stand then that says more about you than them


What are you on about? I simply made an observation that I find Valverde more likable than Froome and the possibility that others have the same opinion. Therefore, Froome sees more vitriol than Valverde. There was no support of the piss throwing in my comment. 

And no, my opinion has never been humble.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Nationalistic/tribal/cultural fervor has more to do with how a rider's doping is responded to by crowds than anything else. If Pinot had popped hot but was wearing the yellow jersey, he would not get the same response as Froome in France. There's a clash there that far predates the bicycle. Sir Dave didn't help. At all, at any point. Froome's own public pronouncements, while not as damaging, were viewed as part of the whole Sky machine, which is not viewed by most as a trustworthy organization. Just fuel for the fire.

People chased Lance with giant syringes and spit on him. Merckx got punched. Cavendish got soaked with urine. None of this is new.

Asking for no anti-Anglo sentiment in France is like asking for no political statements in the Basque Country. Sorry.

Is it right? Nope. But it comes with the territory in a sport that covers so many miles of open road and fans that sit for hours or days in one spot, drinking, for a few minutes of race viewing.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

The xenophobia of the French cycling fans, encouraged by the French Press and that hypocrit, Hinault, is well known. The phenomenon of the piss-throwing advocates on the net is fairly recent. The question remains as to why a team with as questionable a palmares as Movistar escapes censure.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

coldash said:


> The xenophobia of the French cycling fans, encouraged by the French Press and that hypocrit, Hinault, is well known. The phenomenon of the piss-throwing advocates on the net is fairly recent. The question remains as to why a team with as questionable a palmares as Movistar escapes censure.


Movistar has a court system that seems determined to protect Spanish interests. See todays article:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-continues-battle-to-name-athletes-involved-in-operacion-puerto/

Just in case anyone has any remaining doubts about the supernatural riding in question.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

coldash said:


> The xenophobia of the French cycling fans, encouraged by the French Press and *that hypocrit, Hinault*, is well known.


If you're referring to his refusal to pee in '82, well there may or may not be something there. I don't know all of the specifics of the incident, and it was a very, very different time. You don't hear much about Hinault from his peers and adversaries, and if it hasn't come out by now, it probably won't.

Froome's reception at the Giro was probably affected by his lackluster, under-the-radar performance early on. By the time he did his big ride, which some have characterized as "unbelievable", the negative response didn't have time to ferment before it was all over. Even Lance was better received in France when it was perceived he wasn't in top form. That said, the Italians have been historically more forgiving of dopers than the French.



coldash said:


> The phenomenon of the piss-throwing advocates on the net is fairly recent. The question remains as to why a team with as questionable a palmares as Movistar escapes censure.


In all fairness, the internet and the echo-chamber of incivility it creates is fairly recent. Sky is an easy target based on several reasons, and they do nothing to help themselves in this regard. Just having Gianni Moscon on the roster would be enough for some people, and then Brailford opens his mouth...

It doesn't excuse the physical assaults, but the reasons for the hatred of Sky can't all be laid at the feet of the French Press and Hinault. A lot of people just don't like Sky.

I do think if Froome rode for another team, he would get better treatment from the general public.


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm firmly of the opinion that they're all doping. But Valverde hasn't failed a test yet, while Froome did. And if Moviestar is a reknowned doping team with a reknowned doping DS, they why isn't Nairo climbing as well as Valverde? Is he the only one of them racing clean? 


And if Valverde's doping, what about Simon Yates? Michael Woods? Ben King? Sagan?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

rufus said:


> I'm firmly of the opinion that they're all doping. But Valverde hasn't failed a test yet. . . .


Stop the bus-- Valverde is a convicted doper:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jun/01/alejandro-valverde-ban

Ole Piti has been given a free pass to juice it up 2002 style:



> Spanish authorities have long frustrated the UCI by refusing to investigate riders, arguing that national laws left them powerless. Valverde was, therefore, able to win a Cas ruling when the UCI tried to bar him from the road World Championships in 2007.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

However, how Valverde interacts with the press even after a difficult day like today affects how he's covered by the press and perceived by the public. Sky could take a page from his book in this regard.

Technically, he hasn't failed a test. He got caught with his hand (and blood) in the cookie jar. His sanction was justified and served. Until he gets caught again in one way or another, he's going to ride.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

have simply ceased caring about doping.

just watch the racing and enjoy the scenery....


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

rufus said:


> I'm firmly of the opinion that they're all doping. But Valverde hasn't failed a test yet, while Froome did. And if Moviestar is a reknowned doping team with a reknowned doping DS, they why isn't Nairo climbing as well as Valverde? Is he the only one of them racing clean?
> 
> 
> And if Valverde's doping, what about Simon Yates? Michael Woods? Ben King? Sagan?


Whoa! Valverde is a convicted doper who served a 2 year suspension. Froome is clean.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Well, the UCI decided not to pursue him for exceeding the limit, probably because of the cost of litigation and bad press. They can sell it however they want to, but this time they blinked.

Is that proof that Froome is clean or dirty? Nope.

Valverde never failed a test, yet was snagged when his doping doctor was busted. That doesn't prove he is riding dirty now. Or clean.

Until we have a positive test or some other smoking gun, all we have are suspicions. While hopefully we're less trusting than we were in the '90s and early '00s, I suspect the wool is still getting pulled over our eyes. All we can do is wait and see.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

Alaska Mike said:


> However, how Valverde interacts with the press even after a difficult day like today affects how he's covered by the press and perceived by the public. Sky could take a page from his book in this regard.


... and therein lies much of the problem with the whole issue. A team and/or rider who ingratiates themselves with the media gets an easy ride and favorable coverage. Critical analysis comes a poor second to revenue and an easy life.

Sad.


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

Coolhand said:


> Stop the bus-- Valverde is a convicted doper:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jun/01/alejandro-valverde-ban
> 
> Ole Piti has been given a free pass to juice it up 2002 style:


I was referring to this Vuelta. We all know his past. Got caught, served his penalty. Unlike Froome.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Alaska Mike said:


> Well, the UCI decided not to pursue him for exceeding the limit, probably because of the cost of litigation and bad press. They can sell it however they want to, but this time they blinked.
> 
> Is that proof that Froome is clean or dirty? Nope.
> 
> ...


Good point, I know, Valverde got busted without failing a test. Like Lance right? Froome has a rumor leak out that I don’t know to what degree it was ever verified or supported. No action followed it. So, he’s clean? A law abiding citizen with no record. Valverde is an ex convict. That is my point. 

My original point was never to accuse Valverde of doping, it was more to explore the vastly different reactions to what might look like exaggerated performance. Posters definitely get that, I just want to be clear.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Valverde came of age at a very, very dirty time. That he was swept up in it is no surprise. The vast majority of riders of his quality were, especially those that came from countries that were (and still are) coming to some sort of consensus on doping.

Since then, yeah there's been an eyebrow or two raised, but they haven't been able to catch him doing anything. I hope he's clean(ish) now, because I find him to be an entertaining rider.

Again, if Froome was riding for another team (like Lotto Soudal or Mitchelton–Scott), the backlash against him wouldn't have been so strong. I like some of the riders, but I really dislike the Sky.


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

I like Froome. I like Valverde. I think they both cheated...and continue to cheat. If Valverde returns an adverse finding, I'll be just as happy to debate his result as I was with Froome. 

What gets me is the people saying one person is a doper and another is a good guy with explanations about why his cheating isn't really cheating.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

what a disaster for clean cycling. . .


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Yeah, and no.

Until that generation (and Valverde is near the tail end of it) filters out of the peloton, we're going to have winners of big events that will have the perennial asterisk next to their name. Some, like Valverde, for past actions that spur understandable raised eyebrows, and others for past associations.

Of course, then we'll have the "so and so is from that country" or "so and so rode for that team" associations, which will further fuel the speculation about who is and isn't dirty.

I'll put it this way- if Valverde is still doping, he's very, very good at doping or there is some sort of multi-national collusion involved here. Other than results, which he has consistently gotten (as well as the subsequent testing), there really isn't any smoking gun. I want an extremely effective anti-doping program, but I still wince when people are caught. As a fan, I'd rather they crack than dope.

I'm holding my breath for the next major doping scandal in the sport. If past history is any indication, we're past due. Froome's positive really didn't qualify. That will be the disaster. A sanctioned doper wearing the WC jersey after a climbing-intensive World Championship? More like par for the course. We've just gotten used to more sprinter/rouleur/puncheur-friendly courses over the past few years.


----------

