Bye, bye Alejandro

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
1
0
39*23t said:
Then how come these blood bags went on a tour of germany and italy
Good question. But didn't Ulrich settle the case, so that in the end, none of the evidence ie the matching DNA with blood bags, were effectively used? Weren't suspicious financial transactions used as main evidence to make a case? Perhaps, if I am correct in assuming he settled the case, it could be an indication that German prosecutors did not want to use the blood bags as evidence either...

ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT 250.000E

Didn't the same happen in Italy, namely that Basso pleaded guilty, without the evidence being used against him?

GREAT ARCHIVE OF DOPING CASES
 
Jun 9, 2009
320
0
0
true ulrich did seattle out of court as for the evidence i do remember them trying to pressuring ulrich into giving a d.n.a sample to prove his innocence so weather they had proof or not i don't know. another speculation is do they need the actual blood bag or just a copy of the d.n.a analysis report done on it.
 
Jun 3, 2009
287
0
0
Bala Verde said:
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.
In Australia a fair while ago there was one for the “bottom of the harbour” tax avoidance. Perhaps I was over stating it but it does happen where I currently live but it is actually not a democratic country.

I'm obviously not a lawyer and as I said it shouldn’t be for any criminal law, or even changing the sporting regulations but just allowing the wider use of the evidence.

I don’t believe in changing the goal posts but if it is in the spirit of the law/regulation, fair enough.

What do people think about testing old samples with new methods (eg EPO in ’99)? Or even just applying as yet unannounced tests like the CERA last year?
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Not Riding Enough said:
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
Can you please site an example... any example of a law being enacted and retroactively applied under a democratic government??
 
Jun 3, 2009
287
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
Can you please site an example... any example of a law being enacted and retroactively applied under a democratic government??
Please see my above post. While it is only one example in one country, I assumed there must be others. Of course there was Bala Verde's famous examples but they are in a different league.

While it can legally done (I don't now about Spain) it is generally is not done. Fairness would be a big issue but not in what I would like to see happen with just using the OP evidence for sporting sanctions, as CONI already did.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
Most Western countries have some sort of prohibition against ex post facto laws. Sometimes this only applies to criminal sanctions. Some countries have very strong prohibitions and others are pretty weak.

If there was the will then Fuentes, Valverde, and company could easily be prosecuted using regular fraud or conspiracy statutes. Forget about a special set of sporting fraud laws or doping laws. The essence of what they were doing was conspiring to cheat sponsers, riders, and race organizers out of money.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
1
0
BroDeal said:
If there was the will then Fuentes, Valverde, and company could easily be prosecuted using regular fraud or conspiracy statutes. Forget about a special set of sporting fraud laws or doping laws. The essence of what they were doing was conspiring to cheat sponsers, riders, and race organizers out of money.
It's probably not that easy. Spain as most other countries did not have a law against doping at that time. So, I don't think fraud and/or conspiracy applies. That's a big part of the problem. Austria implemented a law recently, just in time, it turns out, to threaten Kohl and Rasmussen with several years behind bars for allegedly renting out their centrifuge. I actually don't know if Spain has a similar law now, but if so, it wouldn't be applied retroactively, of course.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
Cobblestones said:
It's probably not that easy. Spain as most other countries did not have a law against doping at that time. So, I don't think fraud and/or conspiracy applies. That's a big part of the problem. Austria implemented a law recently, just in time, it turns out, to threaten Kohl and Rasmussen with several years behind bars for allegedly renting out their centrifuge. I actually don't know if Spain has a similar law now, but if so, it wouldn't be applied retroactively, of course.
I do not think that the doping itself needs to be illegal to be fraud. That doping is against the sporting rules should be enough. The rider broke the doping rules of the sport. He then used his wins to obtain employment and sponsorship under false pretenses. The sponsors thought they were paying for a legitimate winner who would provide an advertising benefit to them when in fact what they got was a cheat, so the sponsors did not get what they paid for. The athlete deceived the sponsers by presenting himself as a champion when he knew that his victories were the result of breaking rules. He defrauded the sponsors with an intentional deception to cheat them out of their money.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
1
0
BroDeal said:
I do not think that the doping itself needs to be illegal to be fraud. That doping is against the sporting rules should be enough. The rider broke the doping rules of the sport. He then used his wins to obtain employment and sponsorship under false pretenses. The sponsors thought they were paying for a legitimate winner who would provide an advertising benefit to them when in fact what they got was a cheat, so the sponsors did not get what they paid for. The athlete deceived the sponsers by presenting himself as a champion when he knew that his victories were the result of breaking rules. He defrauded the sponsors with an intentional deception to cheat them out of their money.
But if you apply this to a 'normal labor conflict', wouldn't that just be a matter of settling it between employer and employee, with the most likely result that someone just gets fired?

I mean, if you fake your CV, and you get hired based on it, and then your employer finds out, would they sue and try to put you behind bars, or just fire you and collect some damages maybe. The fact that someone sponsors your company, is of little interest (say shareholders) because they voluntarily five their money away, to an organisation they deem capable of making the right decisions. They have some leverage, but since they are not the business owners, there is not too much they can do.

On the other hand, it depends on how everything is defined, since in some cases investors can collect damages, while some employees go to jail for breaking 'financial' rules, as in a Ponzi scheme (Maddoff).
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
Bala Verde said:
But if you apply this to a 'normal labor conflict', wouldn't that just be a matter of settling it between employer and employee, with the most likely result that someone just gets fired?

I mean, if you fake your CV, and you get hired based on it, and then your employer finds out, would they sue and try to put you behind bars, or just fire you and collect some damages maybe. The fact that someone sponsors your company, is of little interest (say shareholders) because they voluntarily five their money away, to an organisation they deem capable of making the right decisions. They have some leverage, but since they are not the business owners, there is not too much they can do.

On the other hand, it depends on how everything is defined, since in some cases investors can collect damages, while some employees go to jail for breaking 'financial' rules, as in a Ponzi scheme (Maddoff).
I don't know where it crosses over from a civil to a criminal matter. I would imagine a lot would depend on whether a prosecutor wanted to press the issue. Perhaps the key point in deciding to prosecute would in fact be an underlying criminal act.

It is still hard to believe that a doctor performing unnecessary medical procedures and distributing drugs for non-medical purposes does not violate some sort of law.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
1
0
BroDeal said:
I don't know where it crosses over from a civil to a criminal matter. I would imagine a lot would depend on whether a prosecutor wanted to press the issue. Perhaps the key point in deciding to prosecute would in fact be an underlying criminal act.

It is still hard to believe that a doctor performing unnecessary medical procedures and distributing drugs for non-medical purposes does not violate some sort of law.
I think it first always goes via a medical board, which regulates the profession of medical doctors. In absence of criminal evidence, they'll adjucates the case and decide wether or not someone acted against the medical code. So when a doctor argues he injected/prescribed EPO because it would speed up recovery, it could be said that he is actually 'carrying out his medical profession'.

That's where the difficulty might lie, is some medical procedure completely unnecesarry or not. Enter the GREY ZONE. The advent of sports physiology, nutrion and dietician studies, etc, probably only reinforces the existence of such a grey zone.

I am completely with you on this however, and I believe that doctors should be the first ones who should be tackled hard. (Regardless of the argument often made, 'they will do it anyway, so with us as doctors, we can at least do it safely')
 
Jun 9, 2009
320
0
0
i see that valverde has finally appealed at c.a.s we shall soon know his fate. either way i don't think he will have his verdict in time for the tour hence no ride
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Professional Road Racing 66

ASK THE COMMUNITY