Bye, bye Alejandro

[VeloFidelis]

so if they all rule in favour of coni will this allow them to go after alberto, pellozotti and other riders yet to pick up their "lost property"

If the UCI upholds and extends the CONI suspension, they will most likely end up writing Valverde a huge check and reinstating him sometime in the future. I seriously doubt that the CAS will uphold a suspension on illegally obtained evidence.

I am sure that Valverde and Caisse d'Epargne have sufficient financial resources to cause the UCI some serious pain before this is all played out. Look what Floyd cost them in credibility and financially on his limited budget How is any of that good for cycling?

If the UCI believes at all in their own Blood Passport system, then they should just let OP be the painful memory that it is, and concentrate on dealing with their efforts in the present. They don't need to declare amnesty on OP, just simply let it die. They can't make their cases there anyway.

 

[39*23t]

agreed this is something that died a long time ago they just keep prodding it with an electric shocker now and again

 

[Kennf1]

If the UCI upholds and extends the CONI suspension, they will most likely end up writing Valverde a huge check and reinstating him sometime in the future. I seriously doubt that the CAS will uphold a suspension on illegally obtained evidence.

I am sure that Valverde and Caisse d'Epargne have sufficient financial resources to cause the UCI some serious pain before this is all played out. Look what Floyd cost them in credibility and financially on his limited budget How is any of that good for cycling?

If the UCI believes at all in their own Blood Passport system, then they should just let OP be the painful memory that it is, and concentrate on dealing with their efforts in the present. They don't need to declare amnesty on OP, just simply let it die. They can't make their cases there anyway.

Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't the evidence used by CONI obtained through the Spanish court system, and resulted from the usual corrupt judge taking a holliday, allowing a substitute judge to rule on the matter? I understand Valv's lawyers are labelling this as "illegal," but it seems like they're just complaining about someone other than "their" judge presiding over the matter.

As for the Landis affair, are you saying the UCI should abandon attempts to sanction the riders with lots of money? The Landis case cut both ways. He also lost credibility and a lot of money. And they never even got into his hematocrit issues.

I agree the OP circus is getting too old, but the length of time that has passed without enforcement is the result of the obstructionist Spanish authorities, not CONI or UCI or AFLD.

 

[biker jk]

Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't the evidence used by CONI obtained through the Spanish court system, and resulted from the usual corrupt judge taking a holliday, allowing a substitute judge to rule on the matter? I understand Valv's lawyers are labelling this as "illegal," but it seems like they're just complaining about someone other than "their" judge presiding over the matter.

As for the Landis affair, are you saying the UCI should abandon attempts to sanction the riders with lots of money? The Landis case cut both ways. He also lost credibility and a lot of money. And they never even got into his hematocrit issues.

I agree the OP circus is getting too old, but the length of time that has passed without enforcement is the result of the obstructionist Spanish authorities, not CONI or UCI or AFLD.

You're absolutely correct. I'm sure VeloFidelis will now again trot out his tired arguments that blood doping wasn't against the law in Spain at the time of OP and that it's more important that the evidence is obtained "legally" than it is to punish dopers.

 

[nobody]

In North Korea it's always important to follow orders of the corrupt Justice!

 

[subzro]

I'm sure VeloFidelis will now again trot out his tired arguments that blood doping wasn't against the law in Spain at the time of OP and that it's more important that the evidence is obtained "legally" than it is to punish dopers.

For anyone to even start argueing that obtaining a conviction is more important than the integrity of the evidence that that conviction would be obtained on is just showing a total disregard for the way most legal systems in the western world work.

 

[BroDeal]

For anyone to even start argueing that obtaining a conviction is more important than the integrity of the evidence that that conviction would be obtained on is just showing a total disregard for the way most legal systems in the western world work.

It might help if the judge could come up with a reason why the evidence should not be used, especially if the reason does not include a large wad of euros slipped to him in a paper bag. Other than that, the evidence is clear. Valverde's blood was being stored at Fuentes' special anemia clinic for pro cyclists.

 

[elapid]

It might help if the judge could come up with a reason why the evidence should not be used, especially if the reason does not include a large wad of euros slipped to him in a paper bag. Other than that, the evidence is clear. Valverde's blood was being stored at Fuentes' special anemia clinic for pro cyclists.

This is a bit like a broken record. But, for the record, the Spanish judge adjudicated the case as a criminal offense. There was no law against doping at the time of the arrests, but there is now. He could not retrospectively apply the new antidoping law, and this is standard practice in most countries. He could only adjudicate the case based on whether it posed a public health risk. In this regard, he ruled “The fact that the blood to be injected belonged to the person themselves minimised the risk. The medications involved were not out of date nor had they deteriorated nor were they administered outside medical control. The conclusion is that the events cannot be considered to be criminal according to the law in operation at the time.”

 

[Zoncolan]

The bottom line is it looks like UCI will uphold the ban and make impose it worldwide.
Once again, some guys are still able to race their bike at the highest level, others have already served their ban, others can't get signed because of their connection with OP.
UCI are a bunch of incompetent, corrupt politicians, and as long as McQuaid is in charge, we won't see the same set of rules apply to everyone, and no chance of seeing a clean peloton!

 

[Anonymous]

The bottom line is it looks like UCI will uphold the ban and make impose it worldwide.
Once again, some guys are still able to race their bike at the highest level, others have already served their ban, others can't get signed because of their connection with OP.
UCI are a bunch of incompetent, corrupt politicians, and as long as McQuaid is in charge, we won't see the same set of rules apply to everyone, and no chance of seeing a clean peloton!

Unfortunately, that appears to be the case. I for one do believe in the rule of law, and while it is obvious that the blood was Valverde's, I do not believe the ruling by CONI is judicious in any way. They set a dangerous precedent in my opinion. Punishing people while maintaining the rights of the accused is one thing, doing so by any means you can is quite another.

 

[Not Riding Enough]

This is a bit like a broken record. But, for the record, the Spanish judge adjudicated the case as a criminal offense. There was no law against doping at the time of the arrests, but there is now. He could not retrospectively apply the new antidoping law, and this is standard practice in most countries. He could only adjudicate the case based on whether it posed a public health risk. In this regard, he ruled “The fact that the blood to be injected belonged to the person themselves minimised the risk. The medications involved were not out of date nor had they deteriorated nor were they administered outside medical control. The conclusion is that the events cannot be considered to be criminal according to the law in operation at the time.”

What was the reason for not allowing the evidence to be used for sporting sanctions, not in the criminal court? Was it due to the laws on how the evidence was gathered? If so couldn't a law be written that could allow this retrospectively?

 

[elapid]

What was the reason for not allowing the evidence to be used for sporting sanctions, not in the criminal court? Was it due to the laws on how the evidence was gathered? If so couldn't a law be written that could allow this retrospectively?

I know the judge ruled that the evidence could not be used in any further prosecutions and the RFEC were not allowed to pursue sanctions, so I presume "prosecutions" means by both the judiciary and the RFEC.

In VeloNews, **** Pound stated "The judge has said that none of the evidence, which is already available to all the parties, including us and the UCI, can be used for sports-sanctions purposes until the criminal case is entirely finished. We are sitting up there with a whole bunch of information that we know exists but you are prevented from using it."

 

[antoine]

Good points everybody

There's one question I still have: can a spanish judge declare a piece of evidence to not be valid in an italian court? Let's say a spanish national shoots the italian premier (if that's who runs things over there), and the murder weapon has fingerprints from the spanish national on it. Can a spanish judge rule the gun inadmissible as evidence in italy? That seems weird to me. Any international law experts out there?

 

[elapid]

There's one question I still have: can a spanish judge declare a piece of evidence to not be valid in an italian court? Let's say a spanish national shoots the italian premier (if that's who runs things over there), and the murder weapon has fingerprints from the spanish national on it. Can a spanish judge rule the gun inadmissible as evidence in italy? That seems weird to me. Any international law experts out there?

I am no lawyer, but ... If the Spanish national shot the Italian premier in Spain and the case went to court and the Spanish national was acquitted on some sort of technicality, then that same Spanish national cannot be tried for the same crime in Italy. Ultimately, it really depends where the crime was committed rather than the nationality of the person committing the crime. If the crime was committed in Spain, then that person is tried by the Spanish authorities, regardless of whether he was Spanish, Italian or Martian. From a criminal point-of-view, CONI would have to prove the Valverde doped in Italy, not that he just doped. I am not sure if the same applies for non-criminal cases tried through the UCI and the national federations because of the international nature of professional cycling. CAS will have an intriguing case on their hands if the UCI globalizes CONI's two-year suspension.

 

[Bala Verde]

There's one question I still have: can a spanish judge declare a piece of evidence to not be valid in an italian court? Let's say a spanish national shoots the italian premier (if that's who runs things over there), and the murder weapon has fingerprints from the spanish national on it. Can a spanish judge rule the gun inadmissible as evidence in italy? That seems weird to me. Any international law experts out there?

I don't know if he has declared the gun indamissible untill infinity, but it is inadmissible as long as the criminal case is pending. This safeguards a fair trial, in that no one can tamper with evidence, who should not have access to this evidence, and affect the outcome of this trial. I think it's is fairly common that no third party, who is not even directly affected by he criminal proceedings whould have access to evidence that could or could not lead to a conviction.

Ie if the spanish national shoots the Italian prime minister, does that mean that the United Nations or whoever else, should have access to the gun with the fingerprints, to reach an opinion on what happened?

...

I think you are right in saying that no one can be tried for the same crime twice. Again, if you were accused, and you weren't found guilty the first time, it is rather awkward that someone else can try you again to come to a different finding in the same case (this is not to say that no one can appeal within a certain jurisdiction). The presumption of innocence would lost be in this case...

 

[antoine]

Is there such a thing as international double jeopardy? Maybe some european agreement to only prosecute once? Even then, OP was not prosecuted, since it wasn't a crime, so the italians are not trying valverde for something he's already been proven innocent of.

I like your point about doping in italy, and how they would need to prove that he did. I'm not super familiar with doping laws, but it seems that if one is proven to have doped (as in ingested illegal PEDs) then one's results past that point are nulified (correct me if I'm wrong). There is no need to prove that the drug a cyclist tested positive for on the 4th stage of a race was still present in his system during his 8th stage victory, for example. But even then, why does he need to be proven to have raced in italy while doped to be banned from racing there? If that were the case, worldwide bans would be impossible.

 

[antoine]

I don't know if he has declared the gun indamissible untill infinity, but it is inadmissible as long as the criminal case is pending. This safeguards a fair trial, in that no one can tamper with evidence, who should not have access to this evidence, and affect the outcome of this trial. I think it's is fairly common that no third party, who is not even directly affected by he criminal proceedings whould have access to evidence that could or could not lead to a conviction.

Ie if the spanish national shoots the Italian prime minister, does that mean that the United Nations or whoever else, should have access to the gun with the fingerprints, to reach an opinion on what happened?QUOTE]

Is the case still pending? And didn't a spanish judge give CONI the evidence? I'm not saying they should have access, but that if they are given access, they should be free to do as they please with the evidence. If the UN was given access to the gun, and ran an analysis to see who the fingerprints belonged to, and it turned out it was some undersecretary of the UN, I think they should be free to begin internal disciplinary proceedings, which, in a way, is what CONI has done. They haven't taken valverde's license away, nor have they said he is not allowed to race bikes professionally anymore. They're just saying he can't race in italy.

 

[Bala Verde]

Is the case still pending?

At the moment, I think the case is indeed still pending (again), for whatever reason (tardiness, cover-up, magintude of the 'crime', complexity of the 'crime' which wasn't a crime at the time, which forces public prosecutors to use different laws to come to try someone etc). Especially in criminal cases, where much tougher sanctions apply, jailtime v. mere 'professional bans', it is paramount that all judicial guarantees are closely observed, so that the accused stand a fair trial. In many cases, infractions of fair trial guarantees (technicalities in main stream media) can lead to acquittals.

Anyhow, the reason why so few people got convicted, is because no doper had violated any of the laws that the prosecutors had to resort to get people convicted. Since the use of doping wasn't a crime, prosecutors had to refer to jeopardizing 'Spain's public health and other health related safety concerns. Since OP concerned autologous blood doping, there was no reason for the judge to believe that doping users in any way had endangered 'public health' in Spain.

That being said, the fact that this case is lasting almost as long as cases brought against mass murderers at the tribunal in the Hague, does not work to Spain's judicial reputation's advantage It's being opened, closed and reopened more often then the door of a red light district's employee.

And didn't a spanish judge give CONI the evidence?

I don't think the spanish judge gave anything to anyone who wasn't directly involved in the case, and that is possibly one of the crucial elements for the UCI to asess the CONI investigations. Did CONI get the "Valv.Piti" blood bag(s) legitimately.

I still think that seems a reasonable way of doing things, because I don't know if you (or anyone for that matter) would have liked anyone to have a look at all the evidence during, or even after a criminal investigation in which you were implicated. In other words, if you had been accused of something, found guilty or acquitted, do you think anyone should be able to access (touch, feel, analyse, drop, handle, operate) any of the evidence that was brought against you?

I also don't know to what extent Valverde had already been accused and acquitted in the saga of OP in reference to the double jeopardy argument.

I don't even think Valverde's lawyers will use that as their main defence, for it would turn into an argument about whether or not the case is identical (Spain OP 'public health' v. CONI 'doping'). That could be tricky and it is probably not his strongest card (legal defitions have some wiggle room here and there, especially with good lawyers). The problem with this strategy is that you basically accept the premises and merits of both cases, and hence are forced to follow their logical conclusions. They will have to analyse both cases and identify similarities, which to me, seems to indicate that you accept what logically follows from the evidence presented. So instead of invalidating (negatively) the CONI case, you use it to postively and tap from it.

If he can convincingly argue that they are the same, the second (CONI) case should probably never have been initiated. However, if the CONI-case is regarded differently, he knows the outcome of the case and will be found guilty of doping as per the CONI investigation. It seems odd that he only then starts to invalidate the CONI investigation as something that shouldn't have occured in the first place, when you have positively used it, to draw analogies between OP and CONI.

What he will try to do, I think, is to undermine the legitimacy of the whole CONI investigation and invalidate it from the start (the Valverde line to deny every accusation), without engaging with the merits of the case. This way, he'd simply have to defer to a 'technicality' in that CONI did not and should not have been able to use evidence that was supposed to be safely locked up. Hence, he cannot be found guilty of doping because 'nothing available' matches his DNA taken from a race in Italy.

 

[VeloFidelis]

What was the reason for not allowing the evidence to be used for sporting sanctions, not in the criminal court? Was it due to the laws on how the evidence was gathered? If so couldn't a law be written that could allow this retrospectively?

There is a well documented international tool often applied to achieving exactly that end... It's called Fascism.

 

[BroDeal]

There is a well documented international tool often applied to achieving exactly that end... It's called Fascism.

That is close enough for a breach of Godwin's law. Our side wins the debate. Yayyyy.

 

[VeloFidelis]

That is close enough for a breach of Godwin's law. Our side wins the debate. Yayyyy.

Not so fast Bro!

Godwin's Law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule)[1] is an informal adage coined by Mike Godwin in 1990. The adage states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3]
Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.

 

[39*23t]

seems this discussion has gone up a few notches since i last joined in. There is a couple of scenerios which is a bit confusing to me here.the spanish judge ruled that there was no crime committed here but the case remained open due to the possibility of further evidence turning up thus keeping the blood bags as part of an on going criminal investigation and putting the various sporting bodies on a waiting list. Then how come these blood bags went on a tour of germany and italy. does the fact that coni has the piti blood bag jeoperdize the op investergation if coni can prove they got hold of the bag in a legitimate manner what does that spell for everyone else and if not where does that leave valverde and his career being that besides in a court of law he doped.

 

[39*23t]

forgot to add when does the uci make a decision

 

[Not Riding Enough]

There is a well documented international tool often applied to achieving exactly that end... It's called Fascism.

There are many laws in democracies that are enacted and applied retroactively.

I agree that it shouldn’t be made criminal retrospectively but it wouldn’t be unfair to make it allowable to be usable as evidence in a sporting sanction investigation. That is not even changing what is allowed in the sport just giving the sporting bodies the evidence to make a decision.

If Fuentes had suddenly had an epiphany and decided to give his records and blood stores to the cycling federations they could have used it for investigations and sanctions. It seems just like a legal technicality that it can’t be used.

 

[Bala Verde]

There are many laws in democracies that are enacted and applied retroactively.

Do you have any examples? The only one I recall is when the allied victors started the Nuremberg Trials trying Nazis of having committed 'crimes against humanity' and 'genocide', which at that point in time were not crimes at all, either domestically in Germany or internationally.