• 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 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
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?



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.




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.

Make Piti the victim of a crusade against doping, waylaying innocents as well as the truly guilty ones to your heart's content, but the arbitration process in CAS is a VOLUNTARY one, and each side had to sign off on a chit that they'd accept the verdict, regardless of outcome. Piti's side signed, but decided later that they'd like to take this to Swiss federal court, lifting the case out of CAS' jurisdiction.

Your ramblings on what "blind" justice is really all about, doesn't apply. What matters is getting a watertight case against dopers on a per-person basis. CAS's decision ensures that the UCI has got just that, and after the Swiss federal court has made its decision I'm really looking forward to the effing Piti getting banned for a prolonged period. Make my day, UCI!

You yourself attest to the fact that Piti is guilty, and that "we all know that". What's the hand-wringing about, then? Double-dose of ethics-cereal this morning? If you're in an ethics-funk these days, I seriously believe you could find a more worthy cause, and if you can't I'll point out a general direction for you.
 
VeloFidelis said:
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.

I think that if foreign feds got their hands on bloodbags of other riders that the Spanish fed has kept back there would've more cases. Look to RFEC for reasons why this is the only case still ongoing/being chased.

Basso and Scarponi were suspended by CONI, and everyone else either had their case removed by the Spanish courts (lots of riders), were cleared by their national feds (Davis, Botero), retired soon afterwards (Mancebo), had already been suspended for something else (Hamilton), or were retired/dead (Heras, Bartoli, Pantani).

Can't remember which federation/organisation suspended Jaksche though.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
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?



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.




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.
It is not about 'blind justice' or even the individual Valverde (as Scarponi, Basso went through the same process)- it is as simple as is there enough evidence to warrant a sanction.

If you can name all the 200 athletes and provide some proof of which bag of blood belongs to which athlete, then I am sure CONI would be very interested in hearing from you.

Valverdes name came up in the 6000 page document prepared by the Spanish Civil guard, this showed what Valverde had bought and how much he had paid. Once it was established that he owned a dog called Piti this confirmed the name 'ValvPiti bag#18' on one of the blood bags found.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
It is not about 'blind justice' or even the individual Valverde (as Scarponi, Basso went through the same process)- it is as simple as is there enough evidence to warrant a sanction.

If you can name all the 200 athletes and provide some proof of which bag of blood belongs to which athlete, then I am sure CONI would be very interested in hearing from you.

Valverdes name came up in the 6000 page document prepared by the Spanish Civil guard, this showed what Valverde had bought and how much he had paid. Once it was established that he owned a dog called Piti this confirmed the name 'ValvPiti bag#18' on one of the blood bags found.

Well this is where our opinions in this matter will likely not come together, and an opinion by it's nature cannot be right or wrong. It is a subjective interpretation of the facts. Your facts are duly noted and a matter of record which are not in dispute.

Operation Puerto was a surveillance operation which during it's lengthy course identified some 200 athletes seeking medical attention from Dr Fuentes. Do you seriously think that the Guardia Civil cannot identify who those athletes are. The reason they have not, is a civil rights issue. Pat McQuaid asked the Pro Tour teams to demand DNA samples for all their implicated riders. The reason it did not happen is a civil rights issue.

Basso and Scarponi are separate issues because they both confessed their involvement as did Jaksche. Ulrich was linked by DNA through saliva, but had already retired. Contained within those 6000 pages is a wealth of incriminating facts on all of the cyclists named in the investigation.

I guess that my point is that; Davis, Mancebo, Nozal, Paulinho, Zarate, Gil, Gutierrez, Etxebarria, Osa, Serrano, Vicioso, and more have all most likely raced in Italy since OP was headline news. If you can show me that the blood samples of these UCI licensed professional riders, have also been diverted by the Italian National Olympic Committee for the purposes of matching their DNA against blood obtained during the OP investigation, Then I will agree that justice is being done in the Valverde case.

But until you can, I don't see how you can classify what's happening as fair and equal treatment under the law.
 
hektoren said:
Make Piti the victim of a crusade against doping, waylaying innocents as well as the truly guilty ones to your heart's content, but the arbitration process in CAS is a VOLUNTARY one, and each side had to sign off on a chit that they'd accept the verdict, regardless of outcome. Piti's side signed, but decided later that they'd like to take this to Swiss federal court, lifting the case out of CAS' jurisdiction.

Ah those crazy lawyers... the things they won't do eh? Like looking after a client's best interests. Oh... and uh... Contador's "side", they didn't have to sign anything right? Why is that?

hektoren said:
Your ramblings on what "blind" justice is really all about, doesn't apply. What matters is getting a watertight case against dopers on a per-person basis. CAS's decision ensures that the UCI has got just that, and after the Swiss federal court has made its decision I'm really looking forward to the effing Piti getting banned for a prolonged period. Make my day, UCI!

Yes, I see you prefer selective justice... Oh wait... actually that is a crime.

hektoren said:
You yourself attest to the fact that Piti is guilty, and that "we all know that". What's the hand-wringing about, then? Double-dose of ethics-cereal this morning? If you're in an ethics-funk these days, I seriously believe you could find a more worthy cause, and if you can't I'll point out a general direction for you.

Sounds like your moral compass is a little off. Thanks anyway! I'll use my own.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,020
0
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
But until you can, I don't see how you can classify what's happening as fair and equal treatment under the law.

if they only catch 1 in 200 burglars is it fair to throw that 1 person in jail?

doping is the same. just because you get caught and others don't doesn't mean you should not be banned. get a clue

p.s. you're getting that daily post count up
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Visit site
Kender said:
if they only catch 1 in 200 burglars is it fair to throw that 1 person in jail?

doping is the same. just because you get caught and others don't doesn't mean you should not be banned. get a clue

p.s. you're getting that daily post count up

more accurately it's a case of if they have evidence against 200 burglars and only prosecute one, is it fair to throw that one in jail?

when the others are ignored it puts the whole thing on shaky moral ground.
 
Kender said:
if they only catch 1 in 200 burglars is it fair to throw that 1 person in jail?

doping is the same. just because you get caught and others don't doesn't mean you should not be banned. get a clue

p.s. you're getting that daily post count up

Get a clue??! MMmmm... you mean like you?

"Yah Bro, if like a tree falls in the woods, can I still listen to my iPod"

Got it!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
Well this is where our opinions in this matter will likely not come together, and an opinion by it's nature cannot be right or wrong. It is a subjective interpretation of the facts. Your facts are duly noted and a matter of record which are not in dispute.

Operation Puerto was a surveillance operation which during it's lengthy course identified some 200 athletes seeking medical attention from Dr Fuentes. Do you seriously think that the Guardia Civil cannot identify who those athletes are. The reason they have not, is a civil rights issue. Pat McQuaid asked the Pro Tour teams to demand DNA samples for all their implicated riders. The reason it did not happen is a civil rights issue.

Basso and Scarponi are separate issues because they both confessed their involvement as did Jaksche. Ulrich was linked by DNA through saliva, but had already retired. Contained within those 6000 pages is a wealth of incriminating facts on all of the cyclists named in the investigation.

I guess that my point is that; Davis, Mancebo, Nozal, Paulinho, Zarate, Gil, Gutierrez, Etxebarria, Osa, Serrano, Vicioso, and more have all most likely raced in Italy since OP was headline news. If you can show me that the blood samples of these UCI licensed professional riders, have also been diverted by the Italian National Olympic Committee for the purposes of matching their DNA against blood obtained during the OP investigation, Then I will agree that justice is being done in the Valverde case.

But until you can, I don't see how you can classify what's happening as fair and equal treatment under the law.
Your interpretation and opinion changes with each post - the only consistency is that the 'facts' that you base your opinions on are wrong.

Which would you prefer:
That a person who has been linked to OP be sanctioned because their name has been printed in the paper because of a loose connection with the case?
or
That there is a standard of evidence required to pursue a person and this must not infringe on their basic civil rights?

Yet again I will say this -the Italians got Valverdes DNA sample legally.

He appealed that decision to CAS - who upheld that decision on all the arguments you raised and indeed more arguments that Valverdes legal team raised.

You said that Basso and Scarponi 'confessed' - actually they continued to deny right up until their hearings with CONI, Basso signed a contract with Discovery, Scarponi said he was looking forward to starting the Giro a week after. They only confessed when presented with the evidence that CONI had (legally) from the Spanish.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
patricknd said:
more accurately it's a case of if they have evidence against 200 burglars and only prosecute one, is it fair to throw that one in jail?

when the others are ignored it puts the whole thing on shaky moral ground.

No - it is the other way around.

Your argument would have merit if they had the exact same evidence of all 200 and picked on a few. Quite simply they had more evidence on some than others.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
Yes, I see you prefer selective justice... Oh wait... actually that is a crime.

Collective guilt, on the other hand, is soooo much better, right?

You imply that Piti's case has been singled out from 200 "identical" cases, with the same amount of evidence in all of them. It just ain't so, and your speculations as to what the Guardia Civil may or may not have established as facts in all 200 cases are just that, speculation. If you sit on hard evidence, let us know about it. If you don't, I fail to see the point of your holier-than-thou attitude.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
No - it is the other way around.

Your argument would have merit if they had the exact same evidence of all 200 and picked on a few. Quite simply they had more evidence on some than others.

i think they've "limited" the evidence against others. personally i don't have a problem with valverde's ban, i have a problem with the lack of action against others.
basically, op stinks pretty badly.
 
hektoren said:
Collective guilt, on the other hand, is soooo much better, right?

You imply that Piti's case has been singled out from 200 "identical" cases, with the same amount of evidence in all of them. It just ain't so, and your speculations as to what the Guardia Civil may or may not have established as facts in all 200 cases are just that, speculation. If you sit on hard evidence, let us know about it. If you don't, I fail to see the point of your holier-than-thou attitude.


While I understand the paradox of selective justice, you are going to have to explain your concept of collective guilt to me.

I neither imply nor infer. Valverde HAS been singled out. The "identical case" bullsh!t is something you've made up. If you know of any other open litigation stemming from OP please share it with us.

And while the "Holier than Thou" cliche' is second only to invocation of the "Fanboy" as a means to marginalize the validity of a discussion in favor of painting a bias, you may want to reconsider it's use so closely after offering to re-calibrate my moral compass. It doesn't quite have the same impact.

patricknd said:
i think they've "limited" the evidence against others. personally i don't have a problem with valverde's ban, i have a problem with the lack of action against others.
basically, op stinks pretty badly.


In a nutshell this is my position exactly!

OP is history. Either let it go, or take action against all participants. If what CONI has perpetrated on Valverde is in fact deemed to be legal, then there should be no constraints to gathering evidence, and testing DNA for anyone involved in OP.

I am not holding my breath on either point.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
One thing which I find puzzles is, what would stop the UCI from banning him two years from the moment the ban becomes finalized and is possible to globalize. Why are they bound by the dates set forth by the Italian Doping Federation. Because this only promotes the type of actions such as taken by Valverde and minimizes the effect of the ban.
 
Barrus said:
One thing which I find puzzles is, what would stop the UCI from banning him two years from the moment the ban becomes finalized and is possible to globalize. Why are they bound by the dates set forth by the Italian Doping Federation. Because this only promotes the type of actions such as taken by Valverde and minimizes the effect of the ban.

A better question is why the UCI can suspend riders from competition as soon as they fail an A test but they cannot seem to suspend Valverde for having his blood stored by Fuentes. The UCI and the race organizers do not seem to be able to apply any pressure to Caisse either. On the sly the UCI has told teams not to hire Rasmussen. Why can't they tell race organizers not to allow Valverde to race.

The UCI has bent over backwards not to do anything about Valverde even as it pursues vendettas against other riders.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
While I understand the paradox of selective justice, you are going to have to explain your concept of collective guilt to me.

I neither imply nor infer. Valverde HAS been singled out. The "identical case" bullsh!t is something you've made up. If you know of any other open litigation stemming from OP please share it with us.

And while the "Holier than Thou" cliche' is second only to invocation of the "Fanboy" as a means to marginalize the validity of a discussion in favor of painting a bias, you may want to reconsider it's use so closely after offering to re-calibrate my moral compass. It doesn't quite have the same impact.




In a nutshell this is my position exactly!

OP is history. Either let it go, or take action against all participants. If what CONI has perpetrated on Valverde is in fact deemed to be legal, then there should be no constraints to gathering evidence, and testing DNA for anyone involved in OP.

I am not holding my breath on either point.

In reference to the highlighted above - you must have missed the news headlines.

"CAS confirms Valverde ban" - Cyclingnews.
"Valverde ban upheld, CAS appeal dismissed" - Veloation.
"Valverde doping suspension confirmed" - ABC Sport.
"Alejandro Valverde loses appeal against doping ban." - BBC Sport.
CAS rejects Valverde appeal, UCI to seek Worldwide ban" - VeloNews.

When you say that Valverde has been singled out why is it names like Basso, Scarponi, Jaksche spring to mind?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
isn’t it interesting that after a whole series of posts admitting various doping facts about valverde, velofidelis comes around and starts denying them.


after being suggested to read the primary legal sources to educate himself as to the legality of coni's actions, he retorted the suggestion by referring to my lack of personal life and him, in contrast, having the personal life as being the justification for not being concerned with the recommended reading or studying of the facts in order to have a 'well informed opinion'

is the spectacle going to get any more ridiculous ? has it not been obvious - as i pointed out right away - that velofidelis is here not to seek facts, knowledge or eduction ?
 
Sep 21, 2009
2,978
0
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
OP is history. Either let it go, or take action against all participants. If what CONI has perpetrated on Valverde is in fact deemed to be legal, then there should be no constraints to gathering evidence, and testing DNA for anyone involved in OP.


Dr. Maserati said:
In reference to the highlighted above - you must have missed the news headlines.

"CAS confirms Valverde ban" - Cyclingnews.
"Valverde ban upheld, CAS appeal dismissed" - Veloation.
"Valverde doping suspension confirmed" - ABC Sport.
"Alejandro Valverde loses appeal against doping ban." - BBC Sport.
CAS rejects Valverde appeal, UCI to seek Worldwide ban" - VeloNews.

When you say that Valverde has been singled out why is it names like Basso, Scarponi, Jaksche spring to mind?

OK about the highlighted, but what about the underlined sentence?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
icefire said:
OK about the highlighted, but what about the underlined sentence?
have you followed the case ?

what do you mean there should be no constraints ?

the constraints are impose by the spanish authorities and coni was able to overcome them by being creative ?

seems like another example of a circular logic.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
icefire said:
OK about the highlighted, but what about the underlined sentence?

Who has been linked and more importantly what links them?
Frank Schelk - the €7000 he wired to Fuentes was for 'training'.
Alberto Contador - well the AC could be Angel Casero....
Alan Davis - his name appeared on a training schedule for Liberty riders........
Which blood bags are linked to them? The only way to 'catch' them would be to sample every bag against their DNA, I am firmly against that.

Valverde has been linked because there was evidence of how much he paid and what substances were purchased.
 
Why is it that Sevilla and Mancebo cannot find a ProTour team to hire them? Both have done well on Rock. Both have done well in Europe before. Both are now racing on an amateur team. Neither has the type of doping evidence that Valverde has. That is effed up.
 
Sep 21, 2009
2,978
0
0
Visit site
python said:
have you followed the case ?

what do you mean there should be no constraints ?

the constraints are impose by the spanish authorities and coni was able to overcome them by being creative ?

seems like another example of a circular logic.

The constraints are not imposed by the Spanish authorities. The constraints are set in the Spanish law and the Convention on Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters. You may say CONI was creative if you like. I just see it as a body who rules on private laws and cheats public laws. And CAS falls in this same category.

Whether the guy is banned or not only affects their private game, and that's something I don't care much about. But I have seen other cases of sports administration bodies (not related to cycling) subverting or ignoring public laws that were more worrying. And not all of them ended like UEFA vs Bosman.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
icefire said:
The constraints are not imposed by the Spanish authorities. The constraints are set in the Spanish law and the Convention on Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters. You may say CONI was creative if you like. I just see it as a body who rules on private laws and cheats public laws. And CAS falls in this same category.

Whether the guy is banned or not only affects their private game, and that's something I don't care much about. But I have seen other cases of sports administration bodies (not related to cycling) subverting or ignoring public laws that were more worrying. And not all of them ended like UEFA vs Bosman.

Again I will ask - what has CONI done that is 'illegal'?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
icefire said:
The constraints are not imposed by the Spanish authorities. The constraints are set in the Spanish law and the Convention on Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters. You may say CONI was creative if you like. I just see it as a body who rules on private laws and cheats public laws. And CAS falls in this same category.

Whether the guy is banned or not only affects their private game, and that's something I don't care much about. But I have seen other cases of sports administration bodies (not related to cycling) subverting or ignoring public laws that were more worrying. And not all of them ended like UEFA vs Bosman.
you are incorrect and again ignorant of the facts in the case. you are also guilty of the same hubris velofidelis is - not reading/ignoring/being blind to what was delivered to you and digested specifically for you in an effort to help you to understand the case.

fact #1: the 1959 Convention on Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters was carefully examined by cas (please bother yourself to read it). it was determined beyond a shadow of any doubt that coni acted strictly in accordance with the 1959 convention. again and again, read the legal analysis.

fact #2: if the constraints were set by the spanish law, the expert crew from italy would never be explicitly approved by the two, read again two, two, two spanish, spanish, spanish bodies to take the samples.

sometimes it pays to be open minded, particularly about the stuff that was spoon fed to you several times before.
 

TRENDING THREADS