Can someome explain why Valverde is still allowed to race?

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

My point on Stuttgart was to show that when suits, Valverdes legal team can spring in to action very quickly - and I agree with the CAS ruling from that case, it was polemics by the others to try and stop his participation there.

As for your second point - did you read the CAS ruling?

 

[icefire]

My point on Stuttgart was to show that when suits, Valverdes legal team can spring in to action very quickly - and I agree with the CAS ruling from that case, it was polemics by the others to try and stop his participation there.

As for your second point - did you read the CAS ruling?

I'm not fluent in French, so at the time I was not sure to have understood all the legal jargon. But if reports of it in English are reliable I understand that CAS recognised CONI's right to obtain and use the evidences from OP for its ruling on the case. If that is correct, they are just ignoring the agreements under which those evidences where obtained, which BTW also apply to extradition of prosecuted subjects:
1) Evidences can only be used in trials on offences recognised as such in both countries.
2) The court ruling can be appealed to a higher court of public justice

None of these apply in this case. Doping was not an offence against public law in Spain and CONI and CAS do not rule on public matters.

As I said, I'm more worried about private or public bodies breaking public laws than individual subjects breaking private laws with no impact on me. Perhaps those who feel their interests are damaged should care about the opposite, but we all know it will never happen.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not fluent in French, so at the time I was not sure to have understood all the legal jargon. But if reports of it in English are reliable I understand that CAS recognised CONI's right to obtain and use the evidences from OP for its ruling on the case. If that is correct, they are just ignoring the agreements under which those evidences where obtained, which BTW also apply to extradition of prosecuted subjects:
1) Evidences can only be used in trials on offences recognised as such in both countries.
2) The court ruling can be appealed to a higher court of public justice

None of these apply in this case. Doping was not an offence against public law in Spain and CONI and CAS do not rule on public matters.

As I said, I'm more worried about private or public bodies breaking public laws than individual subjects breaking private laws with no impact on me. Perhaps those who feel their interests are damaged should care about the opposite, but we all know it will never happen.

I thought you said "its as simple as that".

If CONI have broken an "agreement" then Valverdes legal team can go to the Swiss Courts and get them to overturn the ruling by CAS, simple really.

 

[icefire]

I thought you said "its as simple as that".

If CONI have broken an "agreement" then Valverdes legal team can go to the Swiss Courts and get them to overturn the ruling by CAS, simple really.

AFAIK that's what Valverde's legal team is doing now.

For me case is simple. CONI/UCI are cutting corners, breaking laws and international agreements to chase a suspect with no moral arguments to defend himself. Unfortunately, lawyers, prosecutors and judges have a natural inclination to entangle everything they put their hands on. And the fact that this is a case subject to private law makes it more of a mess.

 

[Escarabajo]

AFAIK that's what Valverde's legal team is doing now.

For me case is simple. CONI/UCI are cutting corners, breaking laws and international agreements to chase a suspect with no moral arguments ...

What are you saying? No moral arguments? I don't know much about law, but to talk about the morality of this case against Valverde is a joke. Be serious please.

 

[icefire]

What are you saying? No moral arguments? I don't know much about law, but to talk about the morality of this case against Valverde is a joke. Be serious please.

I meant the one with no moral arguments is the suspect, not the chasers. Sorry for being unclear

 

[VeloFidelis]

Valverde is still racing because it has not been legally proven that doped. To be sure, there are facts in this case which are public knowledge that are incontrovertible, but for valid reasons of jurist prudence, these facts are not evidence. These same laws protect yours and my civil rights everyday.

If you are going to violate laws in order to make your case like CONI has, then you are a cheat as well. I am not willing to give up laws that protect my rights. So I have to let those same laws protect Valverde's rights as well.

 

[Escarabajo]

I meant the one with no moral arguments is the suspect, not the chasers. Sorry for being unclear

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[luckyboy]

Valverde is still racing because it has not been legally proven that doped. To be sure, there are facts in this case which are public knowledge that are incontrovertible, but for valid reasons of jurist prudence, these facts are not evidence. These same laws protect yours and my civil rights everyday.

If you are going to violate laws in order to make your case like CONI has, then you are a cheat as well. I am not willing to give up laws that protect my rights. So I have to let those same laws protect Valverde's rights as well.

The only reason he is still racing is because the UCI are waiting for CAS to rule on why RFEC didn't open proceedings against ValvPiti.

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

 

[Dr. Maserati]

AFAIK that's what Valverde's legal team is doing now.

For me case is simple. CONI/UCI are cutting corners, breaking laws and international agreements to chase a suspect with no moral arguments to defend himself. Unfortunately, lawyers, prosecutors and judges have a natural inclination to entangle everything they put their hands on. And the fact that this is a case subject to private law makes it more of a mess.

With respect - I think you need to read the CAS judgement, as a quick example the UCI have not been a part of this case, this case is an appeal by Valverde against CONI.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Valverde is still racing because it has not been legally proven that doped. To be sure, there are facts in this case which are public knowledge that are incontrovertible, but for valid reasons of jurist prudence, these facts are not evidence. These same laws protect yours and my civil rights everyday.

If you are going to violate laws in order to make your case like CONI has, then you are a cheat as well. I am not willing to give up laws that protect my rights. So I have to let those same laws protect Valverde's rights as well.

In principle I entirely agree with your position - but not with your facts in this case.

I have been asking this since this case was decided and people were objecting because CONI (Italy) have 'violated laws' - no-one has been able to say which 'law' or agreement has been violated.

The request for DNA from 'Bag #18" was made by the Rome Prosecutors, not by CONI. They did so in accordance with Convention of Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters 1959 (the updated EU Convention in 2000 has not been ratified by Italy) as mentioned in the CAS ruling.

The Italians got Valverdes DNA sample legally.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

If you are going to violate laws in order to make your case like CONI has, then you are a cheat as well. I am not willing to give up laws that protect my rights. So I have to let those same laws protect Valverde's rights as well.

What laws exactly did CONI violate?

 

[VeloFidelis]

In principle I entirely agree with your position - but not with your facts in this case.

I have been asking this since this case was decided and people were objecting because CONI (Italy) have 'violated laws' - no-one has been able to say which 'law' or agreement has been violated.

The request for DNA from 'Bag #18" was made by the Rome Prosecutors, not by CONI. They did so in accordance with Convention of Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters 1959 (the updated EU Convention in 2000 has not been ratified by Italy) as mentioned in the CAS ruling.

The Italians got Valverdes DNA sample legally.

If this is in fact true, this is new news to me. Considering that the blood bags from OP were not classified as evidence in an on going investigation. The OP case was closed as there were no actual anti doping laws in place or being violated at the time of the investigation. The charges that were brought at the time were for violations of health codes. All charges were dropped and the investigation closed.

If the blood is not classified as evidence in and on going investigation or criminal proceeding, then technically it belongs to the donors, and cannot be used for any other purpose without their express consent. That would be the case in the US at least. In this situation you are dealing with complex and conflicting international statutes. Understandably the donors are not lining up to claim there property.

There is however another violation by CONI of Valverde's personal rights that have to do with blood obtained during the TDF while it was in Italy. He is obligated by contract with the UCI and ASO to provide blood for testing of PEDs, but his ownership of that blood is not forfeit. He has given consent for these organizations and whatever laboratories that they contract to test his blood for that purpose. Any testing outside that contract would require specific permission from Valverde. It is still his property.

CONI had no such permission or agreement with Valverde and were not acting as a contractor to the UCI or ASO in this situation. They tested his DNA against the OP blood bag. This had nothing to do with the ongoing TDF and use of PED's. Once the connection was confirmed they let the court of public opinion rule in the matter, and proceeded with a two year ban in Italy.

I am not schooled in Italian law, but I am confident in saying that if there weren't some serious legal issues of property, custody, and consent in this case, then the UCI would have taken action quite some time ago. There is no question that the OP blood belongs to Valverde. There are some serious legal questions as to how that information was obtained, and whether we actually have the right to know.

 

[python]

If this is in fact true, this is new news to me.

then, for your own sake and education, if you don't want to be surprised or act surprised, consider reading (easily available in the public domain) primary sources. this has been the same tired, recurrent theme of every pontificator. instead of reading facts, they choose uttering indignant rhetoric.

endless use of ifs can be easily avoided as the reasoning behind cas's decision, including the legality/admissability/validity of evidence was very carefully laid down and explained by the panel itself.

if you are an expert in international or european law and disagree with cas, take your beef to the appropriate court. good luck.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If this is in fact true, this is new news to me. Considering that the blood bags from OP were not classified as evidence in an on going investigation. The OP case was closed as there were no actual anti doping laws in place or being violated at the time of the investigation. The charges that were brought at the time were for violations of health codes. All charges were dropped and the investigation closed.

If the blood is not classified as evidence in and on going investigation or criminal proceeding, then technically it belongs to the donors, and cannot be used for any other purpose without their express consent. That would be the case in the US at least. In this situation you are dealing with complex and conflicting international statutes. Understandably the donors are not lining up to claim there property.

There is however another violation by CONI of Valverde's personal rights that have to do with blood obtained during the TDF while it was in Italy. He is obligated by contract with the UCI and ASO to provide blood for testing of PEDs, but his ownership of that blood is not forfeit. He has given consent for these organizations and whatever laboratories they they contract to test his blood for that purpose. Any testing outside that contract would require specific permission from Valverde. It is still his property.

CONI had no such permission or agreement with Valverde and were not acting as a contractor to the UCI or ASO in this situation. They tested his DNA against the OP blood bag. This had nothing to do with the ongoing TDF and use of PED's. Once the connection was confirmed they let the court of public opinion rule in the matter, and proceeded with a two year ban in Italy.

I am not schooled in Italian law, but I am confident in saying that if there weren't some serious legal issues of property, custody, and consent in this case, then the UCI would have taken action quite some time ago. There is no question that the OP blood belongs to Valverde. There are some serious legal questions as to how that information was obtained, and whether we actually have the right to know.

The Operation Puerto case was reopened 12th January 2009.
The request for permission to access 'bag#18" was approved 22nd January and a sample was collected in Barcelona by the NAS (Italian Drug Police) on the 30th January and the DNA match was confirmed on the 2nd of February. On his arrival in Italy Valverde was informed he was under criminal investigation on February 19th 2009.

On your other point - it was CONI who took his Tour de France sample and are competent to do so as Valverde was on Italian soil. Valverde signed the form and in doing so accepted that the sample could be used for Italian anti-doping violations.

 

[Galic Ho]

then, for your own sake and education, if you don't want to be surprised or act surprised, consider reading (easily available in the public domain) primary sources. this has been the same tired, recurrent theme of every pontificator. instead of reading facts, they choose uttering indignant rhetoric.

endless use of ifs can be easily avoided as the reasoning behind cas's decision, including the legality/admissability/validity of evidence was very carefully laid down and explained by the panel itself.

if you are an expert in international or european law and disagree with cas, take your beef to the appropriate court. good luck.

Get it into you skull that people do not know every tidbit of factual knowlegde out there. How about you drop the high and mighty stance and accept that people will always hold various degrees of knowledge and information. A smart and bright individual would by now have figured out if so many people on this forum, who have shown via prior posts they are not fools, repeat posts like the one above then that is for a reason.

I explained this before. The news reports and comments in forums alluded to as much as the poster reported. As he said "This is news to me." Your stance is liable to get you bashed in real life. Stop being a tool and grow the F up. Would you act this way towards someone who was a casual cycling fan and dropped by the Clinic and suddenly learnt a thing or two about LA they had never heard before? If you haven't heard or been alerted to some piece of critical knowledge, that is not your fault (most of the time). These people do not have their heads in the sand but you and othes here still act surprised when you hear people do not have the same info you do.

The CAS report people have been directed to via this thread is in French. A legal document 130 pages in a foreign language that very few news and cycling sites have links for. Real shock. Use some common sense in future. Most people do not have the resources and networks to have heard of or alerted them to this info. No shock. The real surprise is you and others have done a great deal here to perturb and alienate others who once informed, would agree with your outlook on Valverde. Not wise at all. If you want this to become common knowledge ask cyclingnews to put some hard core reports on this in place to educated people. Or better yet, go and update Wikipedia, which last time I looked, echoed what this guy had said to you. As I have laid down above, the theme is clear. If you cannot easily find information that alerts you to changes in the Piti/OP/Coni case or read French fluently then it comes as no surprise, to an educated and intelligent observer who knows better, that such a view is reflected in so many people.

You've mistaken every person who has sung the same tune as a doping apologist and in your own ignorance failed to note they are not. They were simply repeating what they knew at that moment in time and wanted confirmation that what they had heard was fact (because they had heard nothing since then or did not have the spare time to follow Valverde's and CAS's every move), had in reality changed. In other words, they were learning and you took a dump on their chest. Nice work.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I don't why people are still arguing about it. I don't think he should be racing but it would seem a joke if he was suspended now after the Court case and the charges are from ages ago.

 

[python]

hey profusor, get into your skull, that before writing posts of hundreds words and wasting own and peoples time - if lacking some knowledge or facts - it's smart to avoid making strong and accusatory statements.

that's a good advice advise for you too because i dont care how much time you have.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

On your other point - it was CONI who took his Tour de France sample and are competent to do so as Valverde was on Italian soil. Valverde signed the form and in doing so accepted that the sample could be used for Italian anti-doping violations.

Of course, this then opens up a whole new can of worms on what constitues an Italian anti-doping violation, and that is at least part of what all the delaying is about. The very presence of the blood is enough for us to say that we can be sure beyond reasonable doubt that Valverde is or was doped, and that's enough for CONI, but is the existence of blood in a Spanish lab enough to confirm an Italian anti-doping violation? Obviously, the decision has in time been yes, but it's not the easiest of questions to answer definitively.

 

[Ripper]

AFAIK that's what Valverde's legal team is doing now.

For me case is simple. CONI/UCI are cutting corners, breaking laws and international agreements to chase a suspect with no moral arguments to defend himself. Unfortunately, lawyers, prosecutors and judges have a natural inclination to entangle everything they put their hands on. And the fact that this is a case subject to private law makes it more of a mess.

Actually, I believe the CAS ruled that the CONI cut nothing nor broke anything - it's all been legit. Piti's legal team is appealing the CAS, but that is very unlikely to go anywhere.

I do find the actions of teams interesting. Many teams suspend riders who are implicated, meanwhile Piti has hardly faced any negative actions from Caisse d'Epargne.

At this stage he has won so much (and likely earned a lot of $$) since the case originally came up that I think they should just nuke him with a 4 year ban

 

[fatandfast]

The reason that Valverde is still able to race is that the UCI will not take responsibility for the hand full of athletes that make a living as pro racers instead they dish the discipline to federations that for the most part have no pro racers and little to no pro experience. Kazakstan had a fund for athletes that have been caught doping, the fund is earmarked for the rehab of the offending athlete. The reality is that big sponsors kept Vino in the chips while he served his 2 years. The US federation has @40,000(45?) racers only a couple 100 are pros so when a US rider is caught the people in CO have to scramble for a course of action for the doping pro. Radio Shack just had a Chinese racer come up positive for a medication that is used primarily for horses. I can hardly wait to see the punishment the Chinese fed hands down.. the guy will probably be given a private velodrome and a couple of state paid motor pacers so he can return to represent China in the European bunch as soon as possible. Valverde has bounced from one court system to the next and in consistent form nobody can make up their minds as do what to do with a offending pro cyclist. Cycling websites have chosen to write about Valverde and Vino as if they should come out and say" no,no the punishment is too easy I would like a 5 or 10 year ban you are very kind really punish me". Valverde continues to be in the mix at many big races and is surely getting start money as well as prize money while his legal mire is not resolved. The UCI should have to refund every race and rider that will be impacted if Valverde turns into a cycling ghost.

 

[Ripper]

Get it into you skull that ...

Whoa .... some hot cocoa for you my man! Time to think of the ocean on a warm day, and calming thoughts ...

 

[patricknd]

Of course, this then opens up a whole new can of worms on what constitues an Italian anti-doping violation, and that is at least part of what all the delaying is about. The very presence of the blood is enough for us to say that we can be sure beyond reasonable doubt that Valverde is or was doped, and that's enough for CONI, but is the existence of blood in a Spanish lab enough to confirm an Italian anti-doping violation? Obviously, the decision has in time been yes, but it's not the easiest of questions to answer definitively.

interesting side of it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Get it into you skull that people do not know every tidbit of factual knowlegde out there. How about you drop the high and mighty stance and accept that people will always hold various degrees of knowledge and information. A smart and bright individual would by now have figured out if so many people on this forum, who have shown via prior posts they are not fools, repeat posts like the one above then that is for a reason.

I explained this before. The news reports and comments in forums alluded to as much as the poster reported. As he said "This is news to me." Your stance is liable to get you bashed in real life. Stop being a tool and grow the F up. Would you act this way towards someone who was a casual cycling fan and dropped by the Clinic and suddenly learnt a thing or two about LA they had never heard before? If you haven't heard or been alerted to some piece of critical knowledge, that is not your fault (most of the time). These people do not have their heads in the sand but you and othes here still act surprised when you hear people do not have the same info you do.

The CAS report people have been directed to via this thread is in French. A legal document 130 pages in a foreign language that very few news and cycling sites have links for. Real shock. Use some common sense in future. Most people do not have the resources and networks to have heard of or alerted them to this info. No shock. The real surprise is you and others have done a great deal here to perturb and alienate others who once informed, would agree with your outlook on Valverde. Not wise at all. If you want this to become common knowledge ask cyclingnews to put some hard core reports on this in place to educated people. Or better yet, go and update Wikipedia, which last time I looked, echoed what this guy had said to you. As I have laid down above, the theme is clear. If you cannot easily find information that alerts you to changes in the Piti/OP/Coni case or read French fluently then it comes as no surprise, to an educated and intelligent observer who knows better, that such a view is reflected in so many people.

You've mistaken every person who has sung the same tune as a doping apologist and in your own ignorance failed to note they are not. They were simply repeating what they knew at that moment in time and wanted confirmation that what they had heard was fact (because they had heard nothing since then or did not have the spare time to follow Valverde's and CAS's every move), had in reality changed. In other words, they were learning and you took a dump on their chest. Nice work.

Where did Python "mistake every person" as a "doping apologist"?

While there has been some good, proper and legitimate questions asked some were arguing (mainly on the other thread) about the legalities and rights and using their own beliefs as to what is and is not fair and admissible.

Valverdes legal team have highlighted each of these points and CAS has ruled on each one, in the knowledge that any error on their part could result in the case being dismissed by the Swiss Federal Court.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of course, this then opens up a whole new can of worms on what constitues an Italian anti-doping violation, and that is at least part of what all the delaying is about. The very presence of the blood is enough for us to say that we can be sure beyond reasonable doubt that Valverde is or was doped, and that's enough for CONI, but is the existence of blood in a Spanish lab enough to confirm an Italian anti-doping violation? Obviously, the decision has in time been yes, but it's not the easiest of questions to answer definitively.

Good point - and it was a can that Valverdes legal team opened and spilled out on the desk of Cas.

CONI are a State appointed agencey in charge of sport - and as part of their anti-doping have accepted the WADA code - from the evidence gathered CONI were able to establish that Valverde was in 'violation of using a prohibited method'.
It should also be noted that CONI has other evidence linking Valverde to OP and they also interviewed Manzano As Valverde had participated in events within Italy CONI were therefore able to initiate proceedings against him.

I don't why people are still arguing about it. I don't think he should be racing but it would seem a joke if he was suspended now after the Court case and the charges are from ages ago.

Why would it be a joke- it has been Valverde and his legal team who have delayed this case.