How could it be no crime when Fuentes was taking, storing, transporting and reinfusing blood out of controlled medical services?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.
Not to mention tax fraud.poupou said: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?
coinneach said:I see AC is down as a witness in the Puerto trial starting today: wonder if he'll clear this up?
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.
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?![]()
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?![]()
Netserk said:
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.
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.
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.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.![]()
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.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.
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.
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.
LaFlorecita said:Okay thanks for your explanation
of course I just hope Alberto won't get into trouble![]()