• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Can someome explain why Valverde is still allowed to race?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
one day would like to understand why there is so much hate against Valverde.

Anything to do with nationalities?

I clearly see there is a huge gap between anglo-american cycling culture and european, and please, don't start accusing the latter before cleaning your own house. Hypocrisy?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
explanation

Libertine Seguros said:
..snip..but is the existence of blood in a Spanish lab enough to confirm an Italian anti-doping violation?
The doc addressed it:
Dr. Maserati said:
Good point - and it was a can that Valverdes legal team opened and spilled out on the desk of Cas..snip..WADA code ..evidence gathered CONI were able to establish that Valverde was in 'violation of using a prohibited method'.

Doc, whilst you are correct in principle - it’s the violation of wada rules common to both italy and spain re. an attempted blood doping, imo the basis for ‘an Italian anti-doping violation’ is one of the least complicated or least important points and goes far beyond the mere existence of the blood bag#18. (the hardest question I’m still not clear on - why did coni go after valverde specifically? but that’s a separate subject)

to supplement dr.mas’s answer, i’ll summarize cas's ruling as it relates to the question asked by seguros:

italian procedural legal basis for charges against valverde

from the very beginning coni’s case was based on the italian law that allows prosecution of ‘unaffiliated individuals’ (iow, those with non-italian licenses who wish to compete in italy). the charges were for ‘preventative’ reasons meaning preventing an athlete from competing in italy if he/she broke an applicable italian substantive anti-doping law.

Italian substantive legal basis for the charges:
WADA code re blood doping or (in this case) attempted blood doping. it’s the same basis for almost 130 (or 190) countries, depending on how UNESCO resolution is interpreted, including spain and italy

Legality of Obtaining DNA samples:

as i have pointed several times before, it’s important to keep in mind that the italians used the judicial (as opposed to just coni/civil) investigation route to achieve full legality. cas examined in great detail (pages 24 thru 33) the relevant laws of three countries involved (italy, spain and switzerland) including the judicial cooperation agreements between italy and spain. the panel ruled unanimously and beyond a shadow of any doubt that all was done in accordance with the only applicable and relevant europen law -1959 convention. any accusation of coni’s actions being illegal are totally groundless.

in fact, valverde would get off the hook on a procedural loophole, if the initial request for the bag #18 sample would have come ONLY from coni as indeed it was. considering previous cases of kloeden etc it was understandable. Unfortunately for valv-piti, the public prosecutor of rome saved the day for coni by opening a criminal investigation in feb 2009.


only after an appropriate legal notification and an explicit approval by the spanish public prosecutor and the spanish judge in charge of the bilateral relation btwn italy and spain, the italian police expert group was allowed to obtain the sample and transport it to italy. the panel also concluded that the subsequent revocation order by the Spanish judge, did not apply, was improper and in fact illegal under the 1959 convention.

now you have your answers...
 
Sep 21, 2009
2,978
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
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.

..and they used it for something that it was not recognised as an offense in Spain, ignoring the Convention of Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters.

That's what I would expect from the Justice system of North Korea :p
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
icefire said:
..and they used it for something that it was not recognised as an offense in Spain, ignoring the Convention of Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters.

That's what I would expect from the Justice system of North Korea :p
you're wrong as was just spoon fed to you in a post above.

that's why i consider engaging with fanboys and doing their homework is unfortunately a waste of time which i wont do again on this matter.
 
So if we are to bow to your expertise and extensive knowledge on this subject, and and agree that there are NO "legal issues of property, custody, and consent", in this case, then possibly we can ask you to enlighten us further by answering the question that is the title of this thread.

Why is Valverde still allowed to race?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
So if we are to bow to your expertise and extensive knowledge on this subject, and and agree that there are NO "legal issues of property, custody, and consent", in this case, then possibly we can ask you to enlighten us further by answering the question that is the title of this thread.

Why is Valverde still allowed to race?
dont bow to anyone, read the thread, in fact several threads, and get the answer as it was repeated many many times.

since i just attempted to digest the essential ruling issues for people like you and they don't even bother reading then i feel the onus is on you to just read what's right there.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
So if we are to bow to your expertise and extensive knowledge on this subject, and and agree that there are NO "legal issues of property, custody, and consent", in this case, then possibly we can ask you to enlighten us further by answering the question that is the title of this thread.

Why is Valverde still allowed to race?

Valverde isn't allowed to race in Italy!

If your question is why has the ban not been extended worldwide - then that is an entirely seperate matter for the UCI. And my opinion is that they awaiting the results of the case they took with WADA against the Spanish Federation (RFEC), which is imminent.
 
python said:
dont bow to anyone, read the thread, in fact several threads, and get the answer as it was repeated many many times.

since i just attempted to digest the essential ruling issues for people like you and they don't even bother reading then i feel the onus is on you to just read what's right there.

So like everyone else here, you have no answer for that question either; just a greater preoccupation with the facts.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
as was repeated several times by me and many others, when the answer is given and the reader pretends (or is too prejudiced to acknowledge it or has an attitude of a fanboy) it is waste of time to engage such a person.
you need to do your homework, sir or better yet read this forum.
 
Aguirre said:
one day would like to understand why there is so much hate against Valverde.

Anything to do with nationalities?

I clearly see there is a huge gap between anglo-american cycling culture and european, and please, don't start accusing the latter before cleaning your own house. Hypocrisy?

I really don't understand why some hold up Anglo riders as being clean. The only real difference between US/UK/Aus riders and guys from other European countries is the relative lack of Anglo riders that test positive/are suspended.

And I think that people see Valverde and say that he should've been suspended already, while all the time he is riding around notching up podiums in big races. Most likely if his legal team wasn't so stubborn, he might've been gone by now..
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
So like everyone else here, you have no answer for that question either; just a greater preoccupation with the facts.
Are you suggesting that the facts be ignored and the merits of the Valverde case should be settled on philosophy?
 

Joey_J

BANNED
Aug 1, 2009
99
0
0
Visit site
Any Others?

Dr. Maserati said:
The Italians got Valverdes DNA sample legally.

CONI legally seized AV’s blood/DNA as evidence.
2 Questions - Was any other cyclist’s blood seized as evidence? If so who? If not why not?

Sorry if this has already been covered.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Where did Python "mistake every person" as a "doping apologist"?

I generalised. Not every person but a number have repeated what Velo Fidelis was originally sprouting and Icefire. As I tried to explain, there was a reason. As I also explained, most agree with end result.

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.

Yes they were. Some were also making points based on the knowledge they held at the time which may or may not have been incomplete. You agreed with Icefire's underlying philosophy. That protecting individual rights was more important than letting a body/organisation run amok. The debate was whether they were running wildly about and abusing individual rights, ie: bend the rules to catch someone breaking the law.

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.

I know you adn Python have been pointing this out. My point was more or less there is no need to flame every person. I'll put it down to anger with the UCI and anti-doping. I understand that. But aggressively attacking people who may (you cannot be sure based on a first post) not have the complete info at their disposal is premature. Also people are lazy and do not read the whole thread.

I explained ages back I agree with you guys. I just wanted to make sure I had all the info and as I said I will wait and see what happens. My point was that some others may not. This stuff is not advertised very well. Probably because it is an ongoing court matter. That is why people do not know everything. One really has to have their ear to the ground to be up to date. Maybe people are peeved Valverde and Vino were on the Liege podium. Wrong issue with the wrong people in the wrong week.
 

DAOTEC

BANNED
Jun 16, 2009
3,171
0
0
Visit site
Updated: April 27, 2010, 8:18 AM ET

Associated Press

ROME -- The Italian Olympic Committee is stepping up its pressure on the International Cycling Union to extend its two-year ban for Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde worldwide.

CONI president Giovanni Petrucci said Tuesday that he has asked Italian cycling federation president Renato Di Rocco, who is also the UCI vice president, to speed up the issue within the international federation.

Italian media reported Monday that the Swiss Federal Court rejected an appeal by Valverde seeking to overturn a ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport upholding his ban in Italy. The Swiss court has not publicized its ruling yet.

Valverde appealed to CAS that the Italians had no legal right to judge him based on evidence seized by Spanish police in 2006.

Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press

Looks like ''Piti" won't make it to the Tour.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5139185
 
python said:
as was repeated several times by me and many others, when the answer is given and the reader pretends (or is too prejudiced to acknowledge it or has an attitude of a fanboy) it is waste of time to engage such a person.
you need to do your homework, sir or better yet read this forum.

SOooo... you've got nothing? All that fact, figure and bullsh!t and you can't answer a simple question? It's not really that hard. Let me help you. The answer doesn't lie in downloaded court rulings in French. As a classic Forum nerd, you confuse data with information, and information with knowledge.

The reason Valverde is still allowed to race is that he has not yet been banned by the UCI. See how easy? Now the reasons that he has not yet been banned is the fodder of this particular thread and obviously where subjective opinion and legal and political dynamics meet. Please excuse me for choosing not to spend more of my time engaging the data in this case. I tend to have a life outside this forum. Your daily post average would infer that you don't.

I am satisfied however that my command of the details in this case are sufficient to have a well informed opinion. Those facts are, unfortunately largely immaterial. The reason the UCI has not banned Valverde is because there are and have been serious questions regarding due process in this case. Make no mistake, CONI, and the UCI, and the CAS will all jump through the flaming hoops in order to dot the i's and cross the t's, and eventually prevail in their goal of seeking a ban. But the time it has all taken to metastasize is testimony to the complexities of the issue.

In the end will Valverde get justice?... unfortunately, no. Despite your misguided and cliche' invocation of the "fanboy" card, I am not a Valverde fan. It is of course a fact that he has at least attempted to dope, which is enough to instigate a ban. The contents of the blood bag are even more damaging. But did he really cheat anybody? If so who? Schleck, Contador, Basso? I think not. In a culture where enhancement is the standard, his only real crime is getting caught.

Please explain why anyone remotely associated with OP has not been directed to give blood for the purposes of identifying the donors associated with every blood bag seized in OP. Could it be because there is no legal standing for such a request? Hmmm... go figure. I don't know why CONI chose Valverde to go after, but vendetta is after all, an Italian word. The irony here is that it could just as likely been any one of the fifty some odd cyclists named in connection with OP, or any one of the footballers, tennis professionals, or track and field athletes also identified, but not named.

Had any of them been subjected to the outright subterfuge that is about to produce a ban for Valverde, their fate would be the same. As the political pressure builds to "do something" about the Valverde case, the subjective interpretations of legal nuance will side with the powers that be, and one precedent will follow another. It is clear. Valerde is connected with OP. Valverde will eventually be banned by the UCI. And in the end they will call it a victory for the legal system. But it should never be confused with justice.
 
DAOTEC said:
Associated Press

ROME -- The Italian Olympic Committee is stepping up its pressure on the International Cycling Union to extend its two-year ban for Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde worldwide.

CONI president Giovanni Petrucci said Tuesday that he has asked Italian cycling federation president Renato Di Rocco, who is also the UCI vice president, to speed up the issue within the international federation.

Italian media reported Monday that the Swiss Federal Court rejected an appeal by Valverde seeking to overturn a ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport upholding his ban in Italy. The Swiss court has not publicized its ruling yet.

Valverde appealed to CAS that the Italians had no legal right to judge him based on evidence seized by Spanish police in 2006.

Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press

Looks like ''Piti" won't make it to the Tour.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5139185

They should be putting pressure on CAS to hurry up with the judgement on why RFEC didn't open proceedings on Piti. Then the UCI would be able to ban him.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
Let me help you.
no thanks, i don't need your help. glad you finally attempted to help yourself by answering your own question. way to go. oh, and if you are going to ask another stupid or baiting question expect being ignored. regarding my personal life and the post numbers, you need to simply swallow that it's none of you f-king business nor a need to worry. it's all right.
 
python said:
no thanks, i don't need your help. glad you finally attempted to help yourself by answering your own question. way to go. oh, and if you are going to ask another stupid or baiting question expect being ignored. regarding my personal life and the post numbers, you need to simply swallow that it's none of you f-king business nor a need to worry. it's all right.

Gee...It looks like I touched a nerve. I wouldn't have thought that possible. It's pretty clear that your level of caustic vitriol sets a standard that the rest of us can only marvel at.

Oh yeah... and that "ignore" thing... thats' fine with me. Until you can figure out what the shift key does, it's kind of hard to take you seriously any way.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
you only confirmed your own level of ignorance, prejudice and disregard for the accepted legal fact at hand. the rest of your personal bs, i could care less about.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
SOooo... you've got nothing? All that fact, figure and bullsh!t and you can't answer a simple question? It's not really that hard. Let me help you. The answer doesn't lie in downloaded court rulings in French. As a classic Forum nerd, you confuse data with information, and information with knowledge.

The reason Valverde is still allowed to race is that he has not yet been banned by the UCI. See how easy? Now the reasons that he has not yet been banned is the fodder of this particular thread and obviously where subjective opinion and legal and political dynamics meet. Please excuse me for choosing not to spend more of my time engaging the data in this case. I tend to have a life outside this forum. Your daily post average would infer that you don't.

I am satisfied however that my command of the details in this case are sufficient to have a well informed opinion. Those facts are, unfortunately largely immaterial. The reason the UCI has not banned Valverde is because there are and have been serious questions regarding due process in this case. Make no mistake, CONI, and the UCI, and the CAS will all jump through the flaming hoops in order to dot the i's and cross the t's, and eventually prevail in their goal of seeking a ban. But the time it has all taken to metastasize is testimony to the complexities of the issue.

In the end will Valverde get justice?... unfortunately, no. Despite your misguided and cliche' invocation of the "fanboy" card, I am not a Valverde fan. It is of course a fact that he has at least attempted to dope, which is enough to instigate a ban. The contents of the blood bag are even more damaging. But did he really cheat anybody? If so who? Schleck, Contador, Basso? I think not. In a culture where enhancement is the standard, his only real crime is getting caught.

Please explain why anyone remotely associated with OP has not been directed to give blood for the purposes of identifying the donors associated with every blood bag seized in OP. Could it be because there is no legal standing for such a request? Hmmm... go figure. I don't know why CONI chose Valverde to go after, but vendetta is after all, an Italian word. The irony here is that it could just as likely been any one of the fifty some odd cyclists named in connection with OP, or any one of the footballers, tennis professionals, or track and field athletes also identified, but not named.

Had any of them been subjected to the outright subterfuge that is about to produce a ban for Valverde, their fate would be the same. As the political pressure builds to "do something" about the Valverde case, the subjective interpretations of legal nuance will side with the powers that be, and one precedent will follow another. It is clear. Valerde is connected with OP. Valverde will eventually be banned by the UCI. And in the end they will call it a victory for the legal system. But it should never be confused with justice..
I answered your question afew posts back - I realise it does not fit your view of why Valverde has suffered a great injustice, even though you have yet to clarify what that is. Here it is again...
If your question is why has the ban not been extended worldwide - then that is an entirely seperate matter for the UCI. And my opinion is that they awaiting the results of the case they took with WADA against the Spanish Federation (RFEC), which is imminent.


In what appears to be a final or desperate attempt at keeping your views afloat you then ask "But did he really cheat anybody? If so who? Schleck, Contador, Basso?.

Valverde signed up to the 'rules' of the sport and then broke them, you appear to suggest that is ok as some others are also guilty - and there was I thinking you were a member of the legal profession.
 
python said:
you only confirmed your own level of ignorance, prejudice and disregard for the accepted legal fact at hand. the rest of your personal bs, i could care less about.

And that mystery fact is?... That he is guilty? Acknowledged. That he will be banned? Acknowledged. Prejudice and disregard for facts?... hmmmm.

Where do you get that sh!t?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
And that mystery fact is?... That he is guilty? Acknowledged. That he will be banned? Acknowledged. Prejudice and disregard for facts?... hmmmm.

Where do you get that sh!t?
those two 'Acknowledged' statements from you are enough for me to pause and ask you to answer the doc's questions. they go to the heart of the matter.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
I answered your question afew posts back - I realise it does not fit your view of why Valverde has suffered a great injustice, even though you have yet to clarify what that is.

Well let me try. Let's not make this about Valverde, because there seems to be confusion that this really has anything to do with him personally. Let's instead just make it about the nameless cyclist, one of over 50 cyclist, and over 200 athletes surveilled and identified in Operation Puerto. For reasons unknown to us all, this individual has become the target of powerful political organizations within his sport, that have gone to extreme measure to prove his guilt. The legality of some those measures is only now being determined.

Does that seem like justice to you? If the scope that investigation had turned with equal force onto any other individual identified in OP do you think the results would be different? Can you assert beyond doubt that another blood bag from OP cannot be linked by DNA to Contador or Schleck? Yet it seems we will never know. And he bottom line is; Why is that?? Why does Valverde get this level of scrutiny, and no one else?

Dr. Maserati said:
In what appears to be a final or desperate attempt at keeping your views afloat you then ask "But did he really cheat anybody? If so who? Schleck, Contador, Basso?.

Ok this one is a little more philosophical, I admit. But you really think that Contador or Schleck worry at the start line that Valverde has shown up on that day with an "advantage"? Professional cyclist train and listen to their bodies for years on end to develop their physiology for this sport. They "prepare" themselves for the job at hand. They always have. You can wax on about the ethics involved, but I don't believe there has ever been a successful Pro that is not enhanced. I think it is naive to assume otherwise, and I am OK with that. I believe that there is probably more parity in competitive cycling today than there has been in several decades. And yes, I have been a fan that long.


Dr. Maserati said:
Valverde signed up to the 'rules' of the sport and then broke them, you appear to suggest that is ok as some others are also guilty - and there was I thinking you were a member of the legal profession.

You are correct! He is guilty. We know that. But the reasons that we know that and the legality of those reasons have been at the center of protracted legal maneuverings for a very long time. Does it look like the stars will align and the prevailing political interests will get their wish in this case? Why yes it does... go figure. So what about the other 50+ cyclist who "signed up for the rules of the sport and broke them" with regards to OP?

Justice is supposed to be blind, which is a metaphor for being equally applied. The time and energy spent focussed on a single individual in this situation does not meet that standard for justice.
 

TRENDING THREADS