• 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 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
python said:
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.

In the words of the great poet from the early 80's - 'No one is blinder than he who will not see' (I think he may have borrowed it from someone else).
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Visit site
Operation Grial in Spain continues. Today more information was made public.

Unlike Puerto, some of the athletes' names on the doping agenda aren't in code. Therefore, everyone can easily read the words "Alejandro Valverde".

That makes it 5 names publicly known then, after LL Sánchez, Moreno, Maté and Kolobnev.
 
issoisso said:
Operation Grial in Spain continues. Today more information was made public.

Unlike Puerto, some of the athletes' names on the doping agenda aren't in code. Therefore, everyone can easily read the words "Alejandro Valverde".

That makes it 5 names publicly known then, after LL Sánchez, Moreno, Maté and Kolobnev.

LOLZ!! This just cracks me up. Valverde must be the unluckiest mofo in the peloton. Two police investigations in a country that will do anything to avoid catching dopers and he is ensared in both of them. Good thing for him that he will be long retired by the time he is banned.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
issoisso said:
Operation Grial in Spain continues. Today more information was made public.

Unlike Puerto, some of the athletes' names on the doping agenda aren't in code. Therefore, everyone can easily read the words "Alejandro Valverde".

That makes it 5 names publicly known then, after LL Sánchez, Moreno, Maté and Kolobnev.

Here is a good article on this
http://www.publico.es/deportes/308523/operacion/grial/remata/valverde

Viru kept some good files
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
I wonder how far back the records go.

There were rumors that Postal's preparation support was based in Valencia...

It relates to the years 2001 - 2004. One potential problem is that there is the 8 years 'statute of limitations' set down by WADA.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
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.

Well, collective guilt is the flip side of your selective justice-paradox. Just as you make the claim that it is wrong to punish Mr. Pitiful because the rest of the 200 isn't, I'll make the claim that merely being part of a social group (in this case the "200" people you're referring to, sharing a connection to Fuentes) doesn't qualify for punishment just because a groupmember demonstrably breaks the law. Each members' possible guilt must be established on an individual basis. You don't know, can't know, that they're all guilty, whereas you do know that Piti was.

I'm sorry, but the onus is on you to establish as fact that the 200 other "cases" were bags of blood containing synthetic EPO, the blood drawn from identifiable elite cyclists.
 
issoisso said:
Operation Grial in Spain continues. Today more information was made public.

Unlike Puerto, some of the athletes' names on the doping agenda aren't in code. Therefore, everyone can easily read the words "Alejandro Valverde".

That makes it 5 names publicly known then, after LL Sánchez, Moreno, Maté and Kolobnev.

LL Sánchez, Moreno, Maté and Kolobnev were linked to Jesús Losa, not Walter Virú.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Visit site
Libertine Seguros said:
LL Sánchez, Moreno, Maté and Kolobnev were linked to Jesús Losa, not Walter Virú.

Yeah, I corrected myself on another forum, but apparently not here.
I keep mixing the two up for some reason.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Visit site
hektoren said:
Well, collective guilt is the flip side of your selective justice-paradox. Just as you make the claim that it is wrong to punish Mr. Pitiful because the rest of the 200 isn't, I'll make the claim that merely being part of a social group (in this case the "200" people you're referring to, sharing a connection to Fuentes) doesn't qualify for punishment just because a groupmember demonstrably breaks the law. Each members' possible guilt must be established on an individual basis. You don't know, can't know, that they're all guilty, whereas you do know that Piti was.

I'm sorry, but the onus is on you to establish as fact that the 200 other "cases" were bags of blood containing synthetic EPO, the blood drawn from identifiable elite cyclists.

this is the clinic. since when has fact been a requirement?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
patricknd said:
this is the clinic. since when has fact been a requirement?

You're right - its a public forum, facts are not a requirement .....but if someone wants to persist in making an arguement without facts it is not a reflection on the forum, it is a reflection on them.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
You're right - its a public forum, facts are not a requirement .....but if someone wants to persist in making an arguement without facts it is not a reflection on the forum, it is a reflection on them.

+1 ...........
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
It relates to the years 2001 - 2004. One potential problem is that there is the 8 years 'statute of limitations' set down by WADA.

WADA did not have jurisdiction over cycling until August 2004.

The UCI is calling Virjman right now
 
VeloFidelis said:
The reason Valverde is still allowed to race is that he has not yet been banned by the UCI.

Not entirely true, as he has been banned in Italy and this has been upheld.

VeloFidelis said:
The reason the UCI has not banned Valverde is because there are and have been serious questions regarding due process in this case.

That is one opinion. However, it would seem like a very good legal team is the more likely reason. Valv has a very, very good legal team. The word obfuscate comes to mind. The CAS has upheld that due process occurred. Now due process is being followed to ensure that if the ban is made worldwide, it is just.

VeloFidelis said:
In the end will Valverde get justice?... unfortunately, no.

Oh come on now. The ones who were tagged, confessed, or heavily implicated have faced varying degrees of 'punishment', while Valv has not faced any repercussion from his team and has continued to race and win.

Lawyers are required in our day and age and often help ensure due process occurs. However, they are also advocates for their clients and can confuse and derail and take whatever legal approach they can to help their clients win. In this case, Valv's team has simply helped the process go on and on and on.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Originally Posted by VeloFidelis
The reason the UCI has not banned Valverde is because there are and have been serious questions regarding due process in this case.

Nope. Valverde appealed the decision to the Swiss Federal Court. The court has ruled to reject the appeal but has not published the details of their decision.

The UCI is waiting for this decision to be published prior to expanding the ban. They have also made it clear that they will open cases against other OP riders if they are successful, with Ulrich being the likely first target.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
Visit site
none of this is right. He is racing because there is no pro racing fed w 1 set of rules for professional cyclists. nothing about Olympics nothing about other sports.. just no governing bodies just 1 brand like NFL, NBA,NHL or All Blacks break our rules and you are out. There is no rule bearer for a financial reason . If you race for a team that is based in the US, does most of it's schedule in Europe and get tested outside your country of birth you should go back to China to get punished for doping????Good system
 
Mar 24, 2010
27
0
0
Visit site
Vvd

er...........just what is the case against him? from what little I've read it seems to be pretty lightweight. he's never tested positive in competition. now before you accuse me of being a dope supporter, I'm not but.................

but if my reputation, livelhood and career depended on it I'd expect a far higher standard of evidence than I've currently seen.
 
Actually the case against Valverde is pretty strong. He has never tested positive in competition, but he's got a blood bag in Fuentes' lab, or at least that is 'almost' certain to be his, and when the Italians got to test him after stage 16 of the 2008 Tour de France, they then managed to get hold of the blood bag from Fuentes and match the DNA. The codes of the blood bag include '18', 'AV' (which they've tried to suggest means Ángel Vicioso, but his Fuentes file had a different number), and 'Valv.Piti'. It must be noted, however, that though Operación Puerto hit the fan in 2006, the blood bags in question date from 2004. During 2004 he was riding for Kelme, a team that has been proven to have been involved with team doping, and of course that has meant that the present Operación Grial investigation, into Kelme 2003-4, has featured as the most prominent rider none other than Alejandro Valverde - not because he was doping any more than anybody else, but solely because almost all the others got busted or pushed down a level after Puerto (the likes of David Blanco at teams like Palmeiras Resort, for example).
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
Libertine Seguros said:
Actually the case against Valverde is pretty strong. He has never tested positive in competition, but he's got a blood bag in Fuentes' lab, or at least that is 'almost' certain to be his, and when the Italians got to test him after stage 16 of the 2008 Tour de France, they then managed to get hold of the blood bag from Fuentes and match the DNA. The codes of the blood bag include '18', 'AV' (which they've tried to suggest means Ángel Vicioso, but his Fuentes file had a different number), and 'Valv.Piti'. It must be noted, however, that though Operación Puerto hit the fan in 2006, the blood bags in question date from 2004. During 2004 he was riding for Kelme, a team that has been proven to have been involved with team doping, and of course that has meant that the present Operación Grial investigation, into Kelme 2003-4, has featured as the most prominent rider none other than Alejandro Valverde - not because he was doping any more than anybody else, but solely because almost all the others got busted or pushed down a level after Puerto (the likes of David Blanco at teams like Palmeiras Resort, for example).

The main problem however is in the manner in which the Italians got hold of the evidence from the Fuentes case and there are more evidentiary problems which can be constructed due to the sudden appearance of this evidence in the Italian case. For example how can the sanctity of the evidence be proven if it has not been handled in a manner like it should have been handled
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,020
0
0
Visit site
Barrus said:
The main problem however is in the manner in which the Italians got hold of the evidence from the Fuentes case and there are more evidentiary problems which can be constructed due to the sudden appearance of this evidence in the Italian case. For example how can the sanctity of the evidence be proven if it has not been handled in a manner like it should have been handled

keep flogging that dead horse

the italians got the evidence legally. CAS ruled as such, and the appeal of the CAS ruling was overturned also.
 
May 11, 2009
1,301
0
0
Visit site
Italy imposed a two year prohibition on Valverde racing in Italy.
Now if the UCI bans hime for two years but his two year prohibition has ended in Italy why can't he then race in Italy?

(I know the answer but the situation is like being punished more than once for the same "crime.")
 
avanti said:
Italy imposed a two year prohibition on Valverde racing in Italy.
Now if the UCI bans hime for two years but his two year prohibition has ended in Italy why can't he then race in Italy?

(I know the answer but the situation is like being punished more than once for the same "crime.")

Heh, if CONI/FCI let him ride any of the big races..