AC = Alberto Contador

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Hrotha, why do you think authorities leaked the info so selectively that Basso and Ullrich [not spanish riders] turned out to be under strike at once? Who could rule all the process?
 
Jul 8, 2011
4
0
0
I´m going to try to explain some legal aspect about “the Operacion Puerto”. I´m spanish and I´m a lawyer and I don´t speak English often.
The key of OP affaire is that in Spain, in 2006, the doping and its promotion weren’t a crime. This changed some year later but, in those days, the behavior of Manuel Sainz, Fuentes, and so on, weren´t crimes punished by Penal Law. The doping and its promotion were, only, an administrative fault.
For Justice, a penal crime and an administrative fault are qualitative different. The Police and the Judges are powerful to investigate crimes, but these powers are considered exceptional and they are not extended to investigate administrative fault. This is crucial for the Operacion Puerto.
The judge, in the past, considered that all the evidences joined by the Guardia Civil couldn’t be used in these process because there weren´t crimes. There were, simply, administrative faults. And the process finished without further investigations and penalties.
I think honestly that any Spanish authority tried to protect any Spanish sportman, included Contador, Valverde, and others. Simply, a judge applied the existing law in Spain in those days.
 
Jul 8, 2011
4
0
0
Sorry, when I say "administrative fault" I´m thinking in an "administrative offence" and when I say "crime" I want to say "criminal offence".
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
robertmillar said:
I´m going to try to explain some legal aspect about “the Operacion Puerto”. I´m spanish and I´m a lawyer and I don´t speak English often.
The key of OP affaire is that in Spain, in 2006, the doping and its promotion weren’t a crime. This changed some year later but, in those days, the behavior of Manuel Sainz, Fuentes, and so on, weren´t crimes punished by Penal Law. The doping and its promotion were, only, an administrative fault.
For Justice, a penal crime and an administrative fault are qualitative different. The Police and the Judges are powerful to investigate crimes, but these powers are considered exceptional and they are not extended to investigate administrative fault. This is crucial for the Operacion Puerto.
The judge, in the past, considered that all the evidences joined by the Guardia Civil couldn’t be used in these process because there weren´t crimes. There were, simply, administrative faults. And the process finished without further investigations and penalties.
I think honestly that any Spanish authority tried to protect any Spanish sportman, included Contador, Valverde, and others. Simply, a judge applied the existing law in Spain in those days.
How could it be no crime when Fuentes was taking, storing, transporting and reinfusing blood out of controlled medical services?
How could he send blood in France without breaking laws?
 
Jul 8, 2011
4
0
0
I remember that some doctors defended, during the trial, those practices didn´t involve any risk for the sportmen´s health and the Judge couldn´t accuse Fuentes of committing a crime against Public Health.
I imagine there weren´t evidences about traffic of medicines or tax fraud.
I´m not defending neither Fuentes nor Sainz. Everybody knows in Spain that they are guilty but the legal aspect aren´t so clear because there was a normative gap in Spain those days.
Hi, hrotha
 
I see AC is down as a witness in the Puerto trial starting today: wonder if he'll clear this up?:eek:

One well know sports journalist described him recently as "a bad liar"

I disagree, I think he's a good liar: he really believes what he's saying.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
coinneach said:
I see AC is down as a witness in the Puerto trial starting today: wonder if he'll clear this up?:eek:

One well know sports journalist described him recently as "a bad liar"

I disagree, I think he's a good liar: he really believes what he's saying.
well indeed he clearly shares with other dopers that he doesn't feel he's cheating.
as hrotha also says, some of his lying has been outstanding, to the point where you'd think he believes in his own lie.

I loved it when at his first press conference after the CLEN positive, he unexpectedly digressed to explain that the contaminated meat had been vacuum packed in plastic.

Only a few days later, rumors about a positive plasticizer test started to surface.
 
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
There is a rumor about covered up positive in the Vuelta in russian speaking community. If we heard about that, probably one of our spanish guys know where it came from? Hrotha, anyone else? :)
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
airstream said:
There is a rumor about covered up positive in the Vuelta in russian speaking community. If we heard about that, probably one of our spanish guys know where it came from? Hrotha, anyone else? :)
The Vuelta positive is from 2012. The Madrid lab ****ed it up by mixing up samples, and subsequently got a 3-month suspension from WADA.
Names haven't surfaced, afaik, not even in the rumor department.
For unknown reasons, the lab never bothered to check the b-samples.
Smells like a cover up, though it could certainly have been a genuine **** up.
In any case, the director of the lab resigned because of it.
 
airstream said:
There is a rumor about covered up positive in the Vuelta in russian speaking community. If we heard about that, probably one of our spanish guys know where it came from? Hrotha, anyone else? :)
It was on Velonation a week or so ago....first sample positive....second sample negative and different......re-examination of sample 1 showed contamination (possibly from another sample)

Lab criticized.

Sniper beat me to the answer, and I'll bow to his superior recollection of the non event

Just another small footnote in the incompetence of cyclings management of drug issues
 
Netserk said:
Apparently it was Eugenio Bermudez that protected AC from Puerto

Link
Six weeks later, the Spanish cycling federation’s general secretary Eugenio Bermudez wrote to the government asking that police corroborate any evidence against Contador or drop him from the investigation to avoid “irreparable” damage to his image. The letter said Fuentes had “exonerated” the cyclist after telling the Cadena Ser radio station a week earlier he didn’t know the athlete. Contador was at the time an up-and- coming rider without a major race win.
what's wrong with this? He asked for Alberto to be dropped from the investigation if there was no evidence, because of what Fuentes said. So apparently there was not enough evidence.

Why would he put so much efforts into protecting a rider that was barely known to the general public? I can only imagine: because he wasn't protecting him but just asked for him to be dropped from the investigation if there was not enough evidence.
 
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Thanks for clarification, guys. We again and again hit the situation in which anti-doping fight is implemented exceptionally declaratively. That was one of big guys obviously. They wouldn't have covered up that if this had been a little fish. And there were only 3 big guys. :rolleyes:
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
LaFlorecita said:
what's wrong with this? He asked for Alberto to be dropped from the investigation if there was no evidence, because of what Fuentes said. So apparently there was not enough evidence.

Why would he put so much efforts into protecting a rider that was barely known to the general public? I can only imagine: because he wasn't protecting him but just asked for him to be dropped from the investigation if there was not enough evidence.
Don't think Netserk suggests there is anything wrong.
It does seem to fit the definition of "protection", but not necessarily unjustified protection. If it would come out that Bermudez exerted some sort of political pressure, that would be a different story. But thus far, I'd agree that nothing's wrong.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
airstream said:
Thanks for clarification, guys. We again and again hit the situation in which anti-doping fight is implemented exceptionally declaratively. That was one of big guys obviously. They wouldn't have covered up that if this had been a little fish. And there were only 3 big guys. :rolleyes:
this is a tempting and certainly plausible analysis, though the fact that the lab director actually assumed responsibility for the screw-up could be an indication that it was indeed just that: a screw up.
 
LaFlorecita said:
what's wrong with this? He asked for Alberto to be dropped from the investigation if there was no evidence, because of what Fuentes said. So apparently there was not enough evidence.

Why would he put so much efforts into protecting a rider that was barely known to the general public? I can only imagine: because he wasn't protecting him but just asked for him to be dropped from the investigation if there was not enough evidence.
Contador, like the other young guns at Liberty, was protected. They could scapegoat cycling and the then current generation of stars to save the other sports, but they couldn't completely destroy Spanish cycling. Fuentes said he didn't know Contador, but "AC" was clearly listed in the seized documents, so that alone wasn't a good reason to drop him from the investigation.

Read what I posted about missing pages in the dossier.

That said, Bermúdez would obviously just be the immediate executor. He didn't have the power to pull this.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
LaFlorecita said:
what's wrong with this? He asked for Alberto to be dropped from the investigation if there was no evidence, because of what Fuentes said. So apparently there was not enough evidence.

Why would he put so much efforts into protecting a rider that was barely known to the general public? I can only imagine: because he wasn't protecting him but just asked for him to be dropped from the investigation if there was not enough evidence.
Sorry Fleur, but that doesn't hold at all. Bermudez wasn't a policeman, so he had no idea what Fuentes had said against the police. He himself says a similar thing when he tries to deny writing the letter....

As he has written and is asking AC to be let of the hook, yet without having the evidence as a detective-policeman it's undeniably a cover up.

Sorry Fleur... no way to spin it. His position in the Spanish union makes this impossible to interpret otherwise.
 
hrotha said:
Contador, like the other young guns at Liberty, was protected. They could scapegoat cycling and the then current generation of stars to save the other sports, but they couldn't completely destroy Spanish cycling. Fuentes said he didn't know Contador, but "AC" was clearly listed in the seized documents, so that alone wasn't a good reason to drop him from the investigation.

Read what I posted about missing pages in the dossier.

That said, Bermúdez would obviously just be the immediate executor. He didn't have the power to pull this.
Okay thanks for your explanation;)

of course I just hope Alberto won't get into trouble :rolleyes::D
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
LaFlorecita said:
Okay thanks for your explanation;)

of course I just hope Alberto won't get into trouble :rolleyes::D
Whatever happens it's all a big disapointment. Puerto should have been resolved in a year, not so many years later. It's all in all ridiculous.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY