Playing God: Eufemiano Fuentes

[Le Baroudeur]

Lance, an example of Anglo Saxon culture? I don't think so...

Corrosion of the latter by the former might be in progress, but we are still culturally very diferent in Europe as a whole and certainly regarding sport. In the north, Team above individual is stil de rigueur.

 

[heart_attack_man]

Perverting the course of justice?

Sorry, the judge applied the laws of Spain, as written and interpreted as of 2006, to the fullest extent that she was able to.

The laws at the time did not deem doping in sport to be a criminal offence, so the best that could be done was to charge Fuentes et. al. under the Public Health laws, and the penalties accorded to the offences as of the date of the charges.

Same thing with the release of the blood bags - the laws relating to privacy and protection of data have to be repected, however much "we" do not like the outcome.

The Law does not equal Justice....... wherever you happen to live.

This. 100% this.

Equally, if you asked me if I wanted to see the identities of the blood bags, and sanctions against all of the individuals, then of course the answer is an emphatic "YES!!!!!!", however, law is what it is.

Put in a more simple way, let's say the speed limit on a road is 40 MPH on 01/05/2013. On 02/05/2013 that limit is reduced to 30 MPH. Does that mean that if I was doing 39 MPH on 01/05/2013 that I was breaking the law? If you apply CURRENT law to it (02/05/2013), then yes - you would be. But you can't do that. And rightly so - that's how law works. Retrospective application of law is a HORRIBLY treacherous slope to tread and should not be done. The best that can happen is that laws are tightened up so that in future these things can't happen.

From a sporting perspective, they were doing the wrong thing, but not from a legal point.

This, to some extent, also troubles me as well though - because the retrospective testing of samples falls into a similar category for me, however I emphatically believe that to be a VERY effective method of attempting to control the scourge of doping. I think that, as much as it pains me, if the test were 'unavailable' however there was a banned substance, and testing becomes available for it, then I could see that draconian penalties applied retrospectively would be suitable. However if a substance was NOT banned, then BECAME banned, and retrospective testing found that newly banned substance in a previous sample, I'm not sure I agree that any ban should/could be applied, even though it obviously does cast a HUGE cloud over any individual in that situation.

I'm not sure if this differentiation is made with regards to retro-testing at all. Is this the case? Genuine question.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as gung-ho about anti-doping as many in here, but I also feel that you can't ban someone for something that at a particular point in time may not have been banned. I know that there's some pretty large 'catch-all' statements in the WADA Banned Substance List now which hopefully should mean that situations as described above can't happen, however I don't know how 'wide' they would go.

 

[hrotha]

Spare me that "applying the law as it stood in 2006" crap. If that were the case, Fuentes would have been prosecuted for tax fraud, drug trafficking and other things. Evidence wouldn't have been destroyed or ignored 7 years ago.

 

[Cloxxki]

Spare me that "applying the law as it stood in 2006" crap. If that were the case, Fuentes would have been prosecuted for tax fraud, drug trafficking and other things. Evidence wouldn't have been destroyed or ignored 7 years ago.

This case and its outcome deserve more outrage and public initiative than the UCI uproar of the past year. The UCI is currupt, but everyone in Spain pays taxes for this farce to be performed in plain view. Don't expect much from Spanish citizens though, they like their football and tennis (stars).

 

[heart_attack_man]

Spare me that "applying the law as it stood in 2006" crap. If that were the case, Fuentes would have been prosecuted for tax fraud, drug trafficking and other things. Evidence wouldn't have been destroyed or ignored 7 years ago.

Woah - easy tiger. I understand your frustration, because the outcome is ****.

I'm not saying that the judicial process in Spain was well-managed, well-handled and not corrupt in the slightest. I believe it very much was all of those things, and that the entire pony-show was a debacle of the highest order and ridiculous overall. I'm certainly not surprised about the outcome, though I VERY much wish it were a different outcome.

Equally, I'm no lawyer either. But, take a look at the simplistic example of speeding.

If you were doing 39MPH on the 01/05/2013, were you breaking the law? Law is what it is at a given point in time. It has to be.

I take your point on board that there were a number of things he 'could' have been prosecuted for. Your guess is as good as mine as to why they prosecuted him for what they did. (I personally believe it's definitely about not wanting to shake Spain's world of sports to the core - Nadal, Barca et al - not a good look for an already ailing country).

Sometimes applying law how law should be applied is very important. Identifying the "patients" (we all know they're not...), would then be unethical because it would be breaking Doctor-Client privilege, and that was nothing to do with the trial itself - Fuentes was the one on trial - not the blood bags. The problem with law, is that rulings set precedents. If it were ruled that Fuentes must identify his clients, then that could mean that doctor-client privilege is completely blown apart from a law perspective and the ramifications of that could be HUGE.

Once again, not saying I'm happy with the outcome (I'm not), but to some extent I can understand certain aspects of the legal process meaning that the 'sporting' outcome is nothing like what any of us would hope for.

He has been found guilty of what he was charged for - equally, that's just bullcrap, and I suspect I would agree with your assertion that he should have been charged with other things, however I will bow to your knowledge on that as I am unaware of a lot of what evidence could support that charge, and whether the prosecution would have a snowball's chance in hell of making the charge stick (or more importantly if the political will were there to support it).

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Spare me that "applying the law as it stood in 2006" crap. If that were the case, Fuentes would have been prosecuted for tax fraud, drug trafficking and other things. Evidence wouldn't have been destroyed or ignored 7 years ago.

So, correct me if I am wrong, the judge is responsible for the charges made by the public attorney?

This case and its outcome deserve more outrage and public initiative than the UCI uproar of the past year. The UCI is currupt, but everyone in Spain pays taxes for this farce to be performed in plain view. Don't expect much from Spanish citizens though, they like their football and tennis (stars).

Luckily here in Holland that new dopingconvenant works just fine

 

[Freddythefrog]

I'm not saying that the judicial process in Spain was well-managed, well-handled .........

Have any of you read the Data Protection Act. I am sick and tired of being told by staff that they can "only speak to the policyholder" or whatever it is and quoting the Data Protection Act. This is not true. What they are genuinely stating is that they are applying the company policy in respect of the Company's interpretation of the Data Protection Act and the default mode is to draw a line in the sand that does not allow for circumstance and is well in front of that required, most of the time.

We have two issues, the Spanish Govt were so worked up about becoming a centre in Europe to which international Sports stars came to juice up, that, post the Festina Tour in 1998 they did completely naff all to make illegal, practices like Fuentes.

Next, there are going to be some wooly and conflicting statements and others, requiring sensible interpretation, exactly like the Data Protection act, in relation to ownership of the blood bags and whether they can be turned over to any other agency. The job of the judge is interpreting that little lot. Now I am not versed in Spanish Law and unless anyone can give us the translation on the reasoned decision and correct technical views on alternate possible interpretations, we are all just guessing.

So please do not insult our intelligence, by stating that the Law has been enforced exactly as it was intended to be and there can be no grey areas. If it was all that simple we could have a clerk with a rule book sat on the bench.

 

[Franklin]

So, correct me if I am wrong, the judge is responsible for the charges made by the public attorney?Luckily here in Holland that new dopingconvenant works just fine

Like I said and which noone of those infuriated people answered:

Tell me again which countries actually have had legal cases on doping besides Spain and Italy?

Germany? Netherlands? Belgium? The UK?

It's amusing because the cold hard facts show that the corrupt Spaniards at least have went to trial with it, while the noble northwestern countries never did something for Freiburg, Humanplasma, Rasmussengate, Breadgate (or was it waspgate?) etc.

I applaud the Spaniards when we have never even tried a Rabo manager.

 

[Andynonomous]

Spare me that "applying the law as it stood in 2006" crap. If that were the case, Fuentes would have been prosecuted for tax fraud, drug trafficking and other things. Evidence wouldn't have been destroyed or ignored 7 years ago.

Totally agree.

I am fed up with the repeated "it wasn't illegal in 2006".

The Spanish judiciary has used any excuse to "exonerate" sporting heroes. They are still coming up with excuses today, in spite of passing new laws against doping (ie. Dominguez). Every single sporting hero gets "exonerated".

It's a lack of will, not a lack of laws.

 

[Franklin]

Totally agree.

I am fed up with the repeated "it wasn't illegal in 2006".

The Spanish judiciary has used any excuse to "exonerate" sporting heroes. They are still coming up with excuses today, in spite of passing new laws against doping (ie. Dominguez). Every single sporting hero gets "exonerated".

It's a lack of will, not a lack of laws.

The athletes were not on trial. What you wanted to hear would never be said. Don't blame the judge for something he wasn't ruling on.

What everyone wants is riding roughshod over privacy and legal protection a la patriot act. Oh and it needs to be crossborder too

And again, rail against the rest of the world who do significantly less than the Spanish or Italians.

 

[zebedee]

How many people have been arrested in the UK for suspected criminality around sport doping?

 

[Freddythefrog]

How many people have been arrested in the UK for suspected criminality around sport doping?

Stop trying to stir !

Sean Yates retired because he was "ill".

Shane moved because he had to concentrate on the track and anyway he had a bump on the head and cannot remember anything about his days at ANC Halfords with Malcolm Elliott. He knows nothing about that nice Rob Hayles.

St David runs absolution classes for anyone being tempted by the dark side, with his tales of "one single moment of madness can ruin your life for ever - let me tell you what happened at 4.35 pm on a single afternoon in my life in 2003. There I was, I had nearly won the 2001 World TT champs but I had never even heard of the phrase EPO let alone thought about using it when all of a sudden.....".

And Super-Dave tells us everyone is so clean that they make white sheets, that have never been slept on and are still in the packet, look dirty, so there is nobody to arrest. Fran confirms these stories for us.

It is just that simple. We are not like your dirty cheating johnny foreigner.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Stop trying to stir !

Sean Yates retired because he was "ill".

Shane moved because he had to concentrate on the track and anyway he had a bump on the head and cannot remember anything about his days at ANC Halfords with Malcolm Elliott. He knows nothing about that nice Rob Hayles.

St David runs absolution classes for anyone being tempted by the dark side, with his tales of "one single moment of madness" can ruin your life for ever - let me tell you what happened at 4.35 pm on a single afternoon in my life.

And Super-Dave tells us everyone is so clean that they make white sheets, that have never been slept on and are still in the packet, look dirty, so there is nobody to arrest. Fran confirms these stories for us.

It is just that simple. We are not like your dirty cheating johnny foreigner.

I LOL like Peter Watts on brain damage (dark side of the moon)

Saving it the memorable post thread.

 

[zebedee]

The plain fact is that the French, the Italians and, dear me, the Spanish too, have actually unleashed the power of state criminal prosecutors to bring criminal charges against dopers and their enablers.

In the States you only get done if you lie to a grand jury. They pretty much turn a blind eye to the doping itself. Armstrong is merely the exception that proves the rule. In the UK, dopers get honours like an MBE or OBE.

There's a whole cultural complex surrounding doping in sport. It's way too simplistic to just point a jingoist finger here or there as if to say sort that and we've cracked the problem. I think it fair to say that nationalism exists everywhere and it presents a huge cultural obstacle which antidoping somehow has to overcome.

 

[del1962]

How many people have been arrested in the UK for suspected criminality around sport doping?

I don't know the numbers, but arrests have been made for those supplying PEDs.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

How many people have been arrested in the UK for suspected criminality around sport doping?

It's made more complicated by the fact that steroid possession is legal in the UK whereas even possession in the US is a crime. Not sure what the laws are for growth hormone and EPO.

I agree though the UK law enforcement could do more.

 

[zebedee]

Since when has an enabler - a sports doctor for example - ever been prosecuted in the UK for supplying peds?

The medical profession could take a massive stride by making the supply of peds for doping purposes an offence against the Hippocratic oath.

Nike alone could near enough stop 90% of sport doping if they were that way inclined. Regrettably, they aren't.

 

[manafana]

I recall there were reportedly police surveillance photos which showed tennis & soccer players. They were not all Spanish either. That might have been in Girona though.

yeah theirs plenty non spainish too, i imagine a few are not at top anymore.

 

[zebedee]

It's funny how 'naming and shaming' of low-life criminals goes on unabated yet when it comes to outing a professional athlete for visiting a doping clinic, the authorities go all coy.

If you can get done for importuning dubious females, why not for peds?

 

[The Hitch]

Love the phrase zebedee that nationalism is a cultural obstacle to antidoping.

So true.

 

[ultimobici]

Totally agree.

I am fed up with the repeated "it wasn't illegal in 2006".

The Spanish judiciary has used any excuse to "exonerate" sporting heroes. They are still coming up with excuses today, in spite of passing new laws against doping (ie. Dominguez). Every single sporting hero gets "exonerated".

It's a lack of will, not a lack of laws.

So you're perfectly happy for current law being applied to activities from 7 years ago that were within the law then? Which tinpot dictatorship do you live under that makes you think that is the actions of a normal civilised society?

As several poster have pointed out, France, Spain & Italy have done more than any Dutch, British, Belgian or American judiciary to convict those who dope or enable doping. At present I think I'm correct in stating that doping specifically is illegal in all three countries currently being vilified in this thread, but not in the US, UK or Holland.

 

[ultimobici]

It's funny how 'naming and shaming' of low-life criminals goes on unabated yet when it comes to outing a professional athlete for visiting a doping clinic, the authorities go all coy.

If you can get done for importuning dubious females, why not for peds?

Naming and shaming convicted criminals is easy, they can't sue for defamation. Naming and shaming an unconvicted millionaire sporting hero is far trickier, and potentially expensive. Ask the Sunday Times.

 

[Franklin]

It's funny how 'naming and shaming' of low-life criminals goes on unabated yet when it comes to outing a professional athlete for visiting a doping clinic, the authorities go all coy.

If you can get done for importuning dubious females, why not for peds?

Odd enough we in the Netherlands have much more naming and shaming of celebs (Crooks, stars and athletes) than smalltime criminals. The latter get their initals in the press, the former get named and shamed or rumors.

In general I don't like naming and shaming in the press considering the effects if inaccurate.

 

[zebedee]

I'm suggesting that states and state entities - countries and their institutions - wake up to their responsibilities regarding doping. States and their agencies can exert power to get things done which private individuals or organisations would lack. That requires dealing with the cultural obstacles presented by nationalism. I've no answers to that but it's worth starting to think about it.

Effective antidoping today requires conventions between states to deal with because the problem is that big now and the amounts of money in professional sport too large. This is almost contraindicative as states, rightly, are reluctant to involve themselves in sporting matters. However, large private multinationals have exploited this vacuum to make money from doped athletes. Use of peds is rife now and spreads down to amateur levels. Sporting federations like the ITF are too weak or, like the UCI, FIFA or IOC, too complicit or corrupted by a dubious past, to have much effect. In any case, they lack the investigative resources and ability to prosecute.

 

[Franklin]

I'm suggesting that states and state entities - countries and their institutions - wake up to their responsibilities regarding doping. States and their agencies can exert power to get things done which private individuals or organisations would lack. That requires dealing with the cultural obstacles presented by nationalism. I've no answers to that but it's worth starting to think about it.

Effective antidoping today requires conventions between states to deal with because the problem is that big now and the amounts of money in professional sport too large. This is almost contraindicative as states, rightly, are reluctant to involve themselves in sporting matters. However, large private multinationals have exploited this vacuum to make money from doped athletes. Use of peds is rife now and spreads down to amateur levels. Sporting federations like the ITF are too weak or, like the UCI, FIFA or IOC, too complicit or corrupted by a dubious past, to have much effect. In any case, they lack the investigative resources and ability to prosecute.

Like I said in the JV thread, I agree that this is the crux of the issue. Without legal support and international agreement this will get nowhere.

Just consider that medicins differ from country to country, as are medical rules. If a rich american can get HGH in an age clinic, how can you prosecute a pro cyclist (who is a citizen with the same rights!) who buys HGH? Obviously you can't, so it's being differed to USADA and the UCI to institute rules prhibiting it. The end result is that even though the rider get's a ban, he won't be legally prosecuted on his drug use (might be legal shehanigans with contracts of course).

It's a huge mess and though I have no love for the UCI/IOC, a lot of the legal framework really is out of their hands. That doesn't say I don't see the corruption and don't see the lack of meaningful reform, but some expectations here are really of the scale.

The UN are taking steps in that direction, but it's hardly there priority. That said, the UN(ESCO) treaty is a big step. It's not without reason that after 2007 (year of ratification) things did get a bit better.