Can someome explain why Valverde is still allowed to race?

[Susan Westemeyer]

There's a bank transaction linking Schleck to Fuentes. What more direct evidence do you need?

Proof that it was for doping. Any good lawyer could give you a hundred reasons why the money was sent.

Assumptions are lovely thing, but they sure as heck won't hold up in a court of law.

Susan

 

[theyoungest]

Proof that it was for doping. Any good lawyer could give you a hundred reasons why the money was sent.

Assumptions are lovely thing, but they sure as heck won't hold up in a court of law.

Susan

Apparently Valverde's lawyers have been creative as well.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Apparently Valverde's lawyers have been creative as well.

Lawyers quite frequently are.

Susan (Who used to work with that species)

 

[auscyclefan94]

Lawyers quite frequently are.

Susan (Who used to work with that species)

How could you work with scum like those things (mostly)?

That's like being associated with Operacion Puerto and your blood bag is cat woman!

Your reputation is tarnished!

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Even worse: they were US government lawyers!

Susan

 

[auscyclefan94]

even worse: They were us government lawyers! :d

susan

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[luckyboy]

The Court of Arbitation for Sport has ruled that Italy legally had the blood evidence.

See for example: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-confirms-valverdes-italian-ban

Susan

Does anyone/Susan know what exactly is going on now? There's been no news for a while..

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I haven't been following this case all that closely, but I think this is where things stand now:

UCI has asked CAS to apply the ban worldwide. That ruling is still pending, and I think expected in the next few weeks. Not sure about that latter part, though.

Until then Valverde can ride anywhere other than Italy.

Susan

 

[Colm.Murphy]

To me, it would seem that all the while he races, he's lost any "time served" and the imposition of a start date should be the day after his last UCI race.

That the ASO says they respect his right to defend himself, they've flipped from their previous stance of revoking invitations from teams who have riders with positives.

And this says nothing of Caisse, continuing to act as if nothing is amiss. He probably draws his salary, and his support rolls all the way up to the Spanish Fed and into the political/judicial world there. It's as if Spain is "Sicily West".

 

[lancaster]

Is there any possibility that he will be faced with a global ban excluding Italy? if he gets 2 year global ban and finishes his 2 year Italian ban. That would be ridiculous, but i wouldn't put it past the UCI/CAS/WADA/CONI......

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

To me, it would seem that all the while he races, he's lost any "time served" and the imposition of a start date should be the day after his last UCI race.

That the ASO says they respect his right to defend himself, they've flipped from their previous stance of revoking invitations from teams who have riders with positives.

And this says nothing of Caisse, continuing to act as if nothing is amiss. He probably draws his salary, and his support rolls all the way up to the Spanish Fed and into the political/judicial world there. It's as if Spain is "Sicily West".

Of course, he has never tested positive.

Why shouldn't he continue to race and draw his salary? He is legally allowed to do so.

Susan

PS. I am neither supporting nor criticising Valverde or Caisse or the UCI or anyone else. Merely trying to point out some of the legal ins and outs.

 

[luckyboy]

I haven't been following this case all that closely, but I think this is where things stand now:

UCI has asked CAS to apply the ban worldwide. That ruling is still pending, and I think expected in the next few weeks. Not sure about that latter part, though.

Until then Valverde can ride anywhere other than Italy.

Susan

Ah ok, thanks. Was just wondering what they were doing for it to take this long..

Is there any possibility that he will be faced with a global ban excluding Italy? if he gets 2 year global ban and finishes his 2 year Italian ban. That would be ridiculous, but i wouldn't put it past the UCI/CAS/WADA/CONI......

I think that the Italian ban could be retrospectively widened, thus voiding every result he's had since the Italian ban started (Klasika Primavera, Catalunya, Dauphine, Burgos, the Vuelta and the Med Tour). That'd be nice. However, then he'd only be out until next May as opposed to being banned until June/whenever he gets the world ban 2012.

It looks like it'll either be that or what you said. Even if he is still allowed to race in Italy during his world ban, what are the chances that RCS are going to let him/his team into their races?

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Of course, he has never tested positive.

Why shouldn't he continue to race and draw his salary? He is legally allowed to do so.

Susan

PS. I am neither supporting nor criticising Valverde or Caisse or the UCI or anyone else. Merely trying to point out some of the legal ins and outs.

There is clear provision for non-analytical positives. Consider the pre-tour withdrawal of the OP group. Or the recent benching of the BMC riders...

Plenty of precedent to idle Valverde until resolved. Ok, pay him, but him racing is the wrong message and diverts from the general standard set by the other teams.

Further, he keeps racing, and each time he resets his effective start date when his decision is fully affirmed and re-applied worldwide, ie, no back-dating.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

There is clear provision for non-analytical positives. Consider the pre-tour withdrawal of the OP group. Or the recent benching of the BMC riders...

Both of those actions were voluntary actions by the teams involved. Caisse d'Epargne has chosen not to do so, and are not required to do so.

What is morally right to you and others, and what is legally correct, are not necessarily the same thing.

Susan

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Both of those actions were voluntary actions by the teams involved. Caisse d'Epargne has chosen not to do so, and are not required to do so.

What is morally right to you and others, and what is legally correct, are not necessarily the same thing.

Susan

Fair enough, I was under the impression that there was a UCI provision and/or a provision to be a ProTour team that covered this. If you know differently, I stand corrected.

I don't see it as "moral", more as a standard business policy, an HR thing.

It seems that for as complicated as the Valverde case is, with issues related to cross-jurisdictions, private parties and public judicial authorities, and the implications of commerce, there is no clear standard here.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't understand how CONi obtained this alleged evidence. How did they get hold of the original Puerto blood? Surely the Spanish authorities didn't hand it over to them? If it was not obtained as part of the proper legal process then it cannot be legal to ban him.

Ok - you asked a good question and then decided to answer it.

CONI as an Italian State Agencey was able to request DNA from 'bag #18" through the NAS - the Italian drug police.

As was noted by CAS this was excepted by the Spanish authorities and 4 people including 2 from NAS and a hematologist went to the Barcelona lab and obtained the DNA from the sample.

CAS had no problem with the way the Italians conducted their investigation (full report in French) and this was discussed in detail in this thread.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Fair enough, I was under the impression that there was a UCI provision and/or a provision to be a ProTour team that covered this. If you know differently, I stand corrected.

Nope, otherwise Footon would have been turfed in July 2008 when they were still Saunier Duval.

The withdrawals of the Puerto people from the 2006 Tour was more to do with the ASO because, although it was part of the ProTour, it is still an invitational event. The ASO continued to wield their strength last year, where they declined Valverde's request to start and threatened to turf Caisse if they started him, knowing he couldn't complete the race. Because the Tour is invitational, they can tell Caisse to go to hell if they bring Valverde, claiming 'extenuating circumstances' like they did to uninvite Fuji last year. The UCI ProTour, however, has no such provisions, and the teams in the ProTour must attend ProTour races, so there's little the UCI could do about Valverde until CAS upheld the CONI ban if Caisse d'Epargne wouldn't take him off the road. And as Valverde's perceived crimes predated his signing for Illes Balears (bag #18 apparently dates from 2004), they chose to side with their rider, saying that he'd not been doing anything while with them (hmmm) and had never tested positive, so they'd stand by him. So he's basically been standing on the other side of the Italian border for the last 11 months doing his MC Hammer impersonation.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I haven't been following this case all that closely, but I think this is where things stand now:

UCI has asked CAS to apply the ban worldwide. That ruling is still pending, and I think expected in the next few weeks. Not sure about that latter part, though.

Until then Valverde can ride anywhere other than Italy.

Susan

I don't believe the highlighted above is quite correct.

Valverde lost his appeal to CAS against the sanction from CONI - I believe the UCI can make the ban worldwide immediatley. (As what happeened with Scumacher &the AFLD).

The reason I think the UCI are awaiting the second case (UCI/WADA vs RFEC) is this presents a 'different' investigation on Valverde and avoid the legal difficulty of when Valverdes 'suspension' begins - or more importantly ends.

If the UCI/WADA win then Caisse will be obliged to suspend Valverde under the terms of the "VIII Code of Conduct' that all Pro Tour teams have signed - the Valaverde legal case will not be over but he wont be as keen to use every delaying tactic once suspended.

 

[icefire]

Ok - you asked a good question and then decided to answer it.

CONI as an Italian State Agencey was able to request DNA from 'bag #18" through the NAS - the Italian drug police.

As was noted by CAS this was excepted by the Spanish authorities and 4 people including 2 from NAS and a hematologist went to the Barcelona lab and obtained the DNA from the sample.

CAS had no problem with the way the Italians conducted their investigation (full report in French) and this was discussed in detail in this thread.

The agreements under which the blood bag was obtained do not allow CONI using it as evidence against Valverde. CONI broke the rules to ban Valverde. Simple as that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The agreements under which the blood bag was obtained do not allow CONI using it as evidence against Valverde. CONI broke the rules to ban Valverde. Simple as that.

If its as simple as that then why did CAS uphold the decision and why did Valverdes legal team not highlight this and win......its not like they are shy.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I don't believe the highlighted above is quite correct..

Perfectly possible, as I said I am not really following this case.

Susan

 

[icefire]

If its as simple as that then why did CAS uphold the decision and why did Valverdes legal team not highlight this and win......its not like they are shy.

I guess that once the case is deviated from the public justice to the 'sports justice' it becomes a private affair where they know the public justice will not enter. We all know there's been only one exception to this with the Bosman ruling and it was because the case was taken by EU, not just an individual country.

 

[luckyboy]

I haven't been following this case all that closely, but I think this is where things stand now:

UCI has asked CAS to apply the ban worldwide. That ruling is still pending, and I think expected in the next few weeks. Not sure about that latter part, though.

Until then Valverde can ride anywhere other than Italy.

Susan

Ah. They're waiting for a CAS ruling on why the Spanish fed didn't bring proceedings against Piti first.

http://www.bicycle.net/2010/uci-will-wait-on-cas-decision-before-valverde-ban

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I guess that once the case is deviated from the public justice to the 'sports justice' it becomes a private affair where they know the public justice will not enter. We all know there's been only one exception to this with the Bosman ruling and it was because the case was taken by EU, not just an individual country.

So Valverde and his legal team who rrived at CAS front door quicker then you can say 'appeal' to get his suspension from the Stuttgart Worlds overturned, claimed not to have a dog he owned, claimed another rider was "folder # 18' are not going to point out something as "simple' as

The agreements under which the blood bag was obtained do not allow CONI using it as evidence against Valverde.

 

[icefire]

So Valverde and his legal team who rrived at CAS front door quicker then you can say 'appeal' to get his suspension from the Stuttgart Worlds overturned, claimed not to have a dog he owned, claimed another rider was "folder # 18' are not going to point out something as "simple' as

The agreements under which the blood bag was obtained do not allow CONI using it as evidence against Valverde.

As far as I know, at the time of the Stuttgart Worlds blood bags had not been handed out to anyone out of the Spanish Justice Court, so your argument does not apply here.
This is IMHO a case where the prosecuted has very little (if any) moral argument and where the prosecution (CONI/UCI) are breaking the rules to chase him.
In Stuttgart they tried to ban him with no evidence, an now they're doing it with evidences they should not be allowed to use if public justice could rule over them as it should.
Valverde is suspect of having broken a private law (doping was not a criminal offense at the time of OP). UCI/CONI are suspect of having broken a public law. The second thing worries me more, no matter how noble their goals are.