Caisse puts Piti on non-active status

[Libertine Seguros]

I'm more interested in what happens if Valverde is suspended by the UCI after already serving 1 year of his Italian ban. If he does get the requisite 2 year ban from the UCI, how does this apply to Italy. His suspension there will be up in 2011, so will he be able to resume racing in Italy - and only Italy, so he can't do the Giro if it touches foreign soil? I know this probably won't be the case, but a UCI suspension would account for a 3 year ban in one country, which seems a bit excessive compared to the fate of other riders.

I realize that many posters will feel that Valverde has it coming, but my main problem with Puerto has been the overall inconsistency of handling any results and the long, long length it has dragged on. As I stated in the Ullrich thread, I really think that the UCI would just prefer that everyone who was named in the original report just voluntarily retire, so they don't have to actually try to take action.

Doesn't this ruling only ratify CONI's ban, and that if the UCI take up their own option to ban him they can only do so for the remainder of the CONI ban because that's the only sanction that has been ratified? Whether he gets two whole years is predicated on results of any investigation enforced by the UCI vs. RFEC case, surely?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But wasn't the initial reason for inaction by the RFEC because this was not a punishiable defense under Spanish law at the time, there was no law to break and thus no crime committed?

With respect 'Angliru' you are confusing the 'criminal case' and the 'violation of sporting rules'.

The information from the Spanish Police could not be used against any riders as in Spain at the time there was no law against doping.
However the information from the investigation could be used to sanction Valverde under rule 2.2.2 of the WADA Code:

"The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was used or attempted to be used for an anti-doping rule violation to be committed."

 

[blaxland]

Yeah,Yeah,Yeah...................about bloody time.........I for one am sick and tired of watching riders deny,deny and deny anything,everytime they are caught....Valverde should have received a life ban,but thats just my thought..See you in 2 years Piti........................Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha........

 

[Anonymous]

I realize that many posters will feel that Valverde has it coming,

Yes, yes he does.

but my main problem with Puerto has been the overall inconsistency of handling any results and the long, long length it has dragged on. As I stated in the Ullrich thread, I really think that the UCI would just prefer that everyone who was named in the original report just voluntarily retire, so they don't have to actually try to take action.

Regardless of any inconsistency, Valvpiti got caught with his DNA in the bag, and that is just tuff titty. Maybe if he hadn't gone to see a gynecologist for doping, this wouldn't be an issue...that, or if he happened to have a vagina and had a good reason to see a gynecologist, maybe I would understand. As it stands, he and his lawyers strung this out, and now the piper must be paid.

As for nullifying his wins since 2004, that is ridiculous considering he did LEGALLY string this out. It isn't as if he was under a ban and riding anyway...well at least everywhere but Italy. Anyway, he should be allowed to keep his wins. I would suggest that the next two years of racing will lose him many chances to win, and is a strong enough punishment.

 

[Escarabajo]

Doesn't this ruling only ratify CONI's ban, and that if the UCI take up their own option to ban him they can only do so for the remainder of the CONI ban because that's the only sanction that has been ratified? Whether he gets two whole years is predicated on results of any investigation enforced by the UCI vs. RFEC case, surely?

+1.

IMO I think you are right. The UCI is just going to ban him for 1 year which corresponds to the second year of the Italian Ban. That way everybody will be happy except for the runner up in La Vuelta a España. I doubt they will take any of his wins away. That would be near impossible to do legally

 

[skidmark]

Doesn't this ruling only ratify CONI's ban, and that if the UCI take up their own option to ban him they can only do so for the remainder of the CONI ban because that's the only sanction that has been ratified? Whether he gets two whole years is predicated on results of any investigation enforced by the UCI vs. RFEC case, surely?

Yeah, my understanding is that if his (weak) appeal to the Swiss courts doesn't go through, then the UCI has the jurisdiction to extend the Italian ban worldwide, which would only last until May 11, 2011. Which I think is why Valv's legal team is continuing to delay. If the UCI wins vs. the RFEC, they can ban him for 2 years worldwide, including Italy, starting whenever that verdict is delivered. So he gets banned for longer in Italy if they win that. There is no scenario where he can race in Italy and nowhere else.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yeah, my understanding is that if his (weak) appeal to the Swiss courts doesn't go through, then the UCI has the jurisdiction to extend the Italian ban worldwide, which would only last until May 11, 2011. Which I think is why Valv's legal team is continuing to delay. If the UCI wins vs. the RFEC, they can ban him for 2 years worldwide, including Italy, starting whenever that verdict is delivered. So he gets banned for longer in Italy if they win that. There is no scenario where he can race in Italy and nowhere else.

And even then, the two year ban is presuming the UCI wins its case vs. RFEC (likely), and that RFEC finds Valverde guilty when it investigates (will it be able to because of the decisions by the Spanish judiciary? Will it prevaricate?). I think you're totally right on the legal team continuing to pursue increasingly weak cases solely to delay. If we step back from our emotional positions on the case, I think we have to admire a masterful, perfectly-executed filibustering of justice by the legal team here.

 

[python]

I think we have to admire a masterful, perfectly-executed filibustering of justice by the legal team here.

nail on the head !

of the 47 pages in cas rulling not a single one was about valverde's team challenging the substance of the case his dna matching and epo in his blood bag.

all challenges from his legal team were procedural or human rights or legal interpretations of bilateral and eu agreements.

no surprise, the tribunal unanimously ruled: we find evidence against valverde admissible, relevant and substantive.

it was his dna, it was his blood with epo in it, it was his dog, it was obtained legally and properly.

as in the majority of cases, the swiss federal court is very unlikely to support the claim that valverde's human and civil right were violated as he claimed.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

nail on the head !

of the 47 pages in cas rulling not a single one was about valverde's team challenging the substance of the case his dna matching and epo in his blood bag.

all challenges from his legal team were procedural or human rights or legal interpretations of bilateral and eu agreements.

no surprise, the tribunal unanimously ruled: we find evidence against valverde admissible, relevant and substantive.

it was his dna, it was his blood with epo in it, it was his dog, it was obtained legally and properly.

as in the majority of cases, the swiss federal court is very unlikely to support the claim that valverde's human and civil right were violated as he claimed.

....And don't forget to add the sneaky insinuation that "bag #18" was associated with "file no 18" wich was Vicioso's file.

 

[skidmark]

The really interesting question is why Valverde wasn't taken off the roster immediately upon the CONI verdict, if not before then (while under suspicion), when that seems to be the case for pretty much every rider who tests positive. What I've always felt was that it was due to the fact that the UCI got burned for moving too quickly with too little evidence trying to stop him from participating in the 2007 worlds. He took the case to CAS, and they overturned the ban in less than a week, so he rode the worlds. It seems that was an embarrassment to the UCI, and I've always assumed the reason they didn't extend the ban immediately was because they didn't want it to get overturned and be burned again, so they played 'wait and see'. Of course in a normal situation the rider's home federation would step in and suspend him, but obviously the RFEC has strong opinions against it. But if I recall, the RFEC wouldn't have supported banning him from the worlds in 2007 and the UCI tried anyway, so I don't think they couldn't have.

The turning point, I think, was when Valv's legal team made so much bluster about taking the case to CAS so he could ride the Tour - the UCI must have been crossing their fingers that the CAS would side with CONI and it'd all be settled one way or another. But then the legal team did an about-face (or perhaps it was their strategy all along) and took the attitude of 'screw the Tour, now that he's racing they can't step in and stop him after allowing him to do so for months already', so they just delayed, allowing him to win Dauphine, Vuelta, etc. Then the UCI was caught in between a rock and a hard place vis a vis optics - it would look hypocritical to try to suspend him now before CAS cases were heard, but it looks awful to let him continue with this cloud of suspicion. Basically, this is the reason why riders ARE immediately suspended when suspected of something, so that it doesn't turn into this horrible farce.

But yes, from a machiavellian standpoint, absolutely brilliant filibustering.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Well, he's on the preliminary startlist for País Vasco, so looks like that non-active status isn't very non-active at all.

 

[DJ Sprtsch]

..and for the GP Miguel Indurain as well. But let's see, they have plenty of time to change their minds.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I had read this piece at the weekend where his participation in the GP Indurain was in doubt - perhaps one of the Spanish posters can shed some new light?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

According to Valverdes Blog he IS riding this weekend - (English Translation here) "This week I will follow my preparation for my next races: the Grand Prix Miguel Indurain, the Tour of the Basque Country and the Classics of the Ardennes."

It looks as though CAS has not yet reached a decision - as Pat McQuaidsaid last Saturday.
"We will wait for the CAS decision first, which should be in the next few weeks."

 

[usedtobefast]

i think there is a lot more here than meets the eye. many legal issues it would
seem. what amazes me is he keeps winning.quite a good rider, no doubt.

 

[rata de sentina]

Not many will agree with me, but I think this has gone on for far too long and a suspension for Valverde will not make things better for anyone.

So he uses every kind of legal trickery and delaying tactic to avoid his day in court and you suggest that despite his significant contribution to it going on too long the CAS/UCI should just let him off the hook. That would be sending the wrong message out IMO. I too, like many others, like the way he races but I used to like Vino too and he was a cheater as well.

You are correct when you say that not many will agree with you and the reason for that is not because there are a host of Valverde haters because clearly there is not. It is because your arguments lack credibility in the face of the facts.

 

[flicker]

I hope he gets the 2 year ban,,,, 6 days before the Tour. Hate Valverdes' attorneys stalling tactics. Were Valverdes' legal costs sponsored by Real Madrid, Barcellona, Fifa? I would love to know who paid his fees.

Guy deserves the same penalty as Basso, Scarponni, etc.

Same deal.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Valverde won't be at the Tour. If the ASO threatened to throw Caisse d'Epargne - sponsored by a French company lest we forget - out of last year's Tour if he was on the start list, then why would they change their minds this year, when they have a stronger GC field so don't need his presence, they have no significant changes in his status that makes him any less of a risk to have start, especially after they were burned by Rasmussen in 2007 (why would they want a potential GC candidate who could be yanked for a ban at any time in the race?), and that sponsor is on the way out anyway so there's less danger involved in alienating them? Also, Unzué would be foolish to risk it by putting Valverde on the startlist.

Of course, now I'm tempting fate.

 

[Ferminal]

Valverde won't be at the Tour. If the ASO threatened to throw Caisse d'Epargne - sponsored by a French company lest we forget - out of last year's Tour if he was on the start list, then why would they change their minds this year, when they have a stronger GC field so don't need his presence, they have no significant changes in his status that makes him any less of a risk to have start, especially after they were burned by Rasmussen in 2007 (why would they want a potential GC candidate who could be yanked for a ban at any time in the race?), and that sponsor is on the way out anyway so there's less danger involved in alienating them? Also, Unzué would be foolish to risk it by putting Valverde on the startlist.

Of course, now I'm tempting fate.

Moreau or Soler as leader?

 

[Escarabajo]

Moreau or Soler as leader?

And Luis Leon Sanchez. It is a good team.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Cobo is good too, but he doesn't like being leader. And then there are some seriously good youngsters, with Rui Costa and Rigoberto Urán (though he'll have done the Giro). Arroyo is also apparently doing Tour-Vuelta this year rather than his customary Giro-Tour. He can hardly be counted out either, having a top 10 in the Giro (and he would have had another this year were it not for di Luca). Kiryienka will enliven any race he's part of as well.

Nobody at Caisse is going to win the Tour this year, but they've got a lot to bring to the table in terms of polka dots, stage wins, breaks and being involved.

 

[luckyboy]

LLS & Moreau for a stage - must be his last Tour surely? I can see him going to a small French team next year though. Soler for the polka-dot jersey. Could be a good Tour for them.

 

[skidmark]

So he uses every kind of legal trickery and delaying tactic to avoid his day in court and you suggest that despite his significant contribution to it going on too long the CAS/UCI should just let him off the hook. That would be sending the wrong message out IMO. I too, like many others, like the way he races but I used to like Vino too and he was a cheater as well.

You are correct when you say that not many will agree with you and the reason for that is not because there are a host of Valverde haters because clearly there is not. It is because your arguments lack credibility in the face of the facts.

I don't know if this was what the ak-zaaf was trying to say, but one of the things that struck me about the case was that it was not initiated until early 2009, almost 3 years after Puerto. The blood was not drawn until over 2 years after Puerto. Don't get me wrong, it's the prerogative of CONI or whoever to open a doping investigation at any time they are legally allowed to do so. But I don't think that an argument of 'this has dragged on too long' necessarily is primarily affected by Valv's legal team's delaying. So I don't think the line of argument is so much 'Valv's legal team delayed this so long that I'm sick of it so he should be let off the hook' as it is 'Puerto was a huge case that was bungled and selectively prosecuted, so it would have been better to have left it buried after 2 years then to selectively go after solitary riders, because that just highlights the unfairness and hypocrisy by which doping investigations are often conducted'. That's what I took from those comments; whether you think that argument 'lacks credibility in the face of the facts' is up to you, but I think it's a more cogent argument.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't know if this was what the ak-zaaf was trying to say, but one of the things that struck me about the case was that it was not initiated until early 2009, almost 3 years after Puerto. The blood was not drawn until over 2 years after Puerto. Don't get me wrong, it's the prerogative of CONI or whoever to open a doping investigation at any time they are legally allowed to do so. But I don't think that an argument of 'this has dragged on too long' necessarily is primarily affected by Valv's legal team's delaying. So I don't think the line of argument is so much 'Valv's legal team delayed this so long that I'm sick of it so he should be let off the hook' as it is 'Puerto was a huge case that was bungled and selectively prosecuted, so it would have been better to have left it buried after 2 years then to selectively go after solitary riders, because that just highlights the unfairness and hypocrisy by which doping investigations are often conducted'. That's what I took from those comments; whether you think that argument 'lacks credibility in the face of the facts' is up to you, but I think it's a more cogent argument.

Sorry, but your timeline is simply way off.

UCI press release August 2007.

During the meticulous studying of the 6,000-page Puerto dossier, the International Cycling Union (UCI) has concluded that several documents may show the involvement of Alejandro Valverde in the affair.

In accordance with its regulations, the UCI has requested the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) to open disciplinary proceedings against the rider as soon as possible.

The reason it wasn't "initiated sooner" is because the RFEC refused to sanction Valverde, which is why the UCI & WADA took their case to CAS.

 

[craig1985]

Valverde is racing Pais Vasco tomorrow.