Star riders called to testify :: Operacion Puerto

May 10, 2011
33
0
0
if cyclists will be appearing then surely some of the soccer and tennis players who worked with Fuentes will be called...? no? thought not.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,235
0
0
Please let the riders first testify to deny involvement and then the Fuentes clan remembring all kinds of particulars about their valued clients that just left the stand.
Doping may not have been a crime, but lying about it sure is, in any country.

And let's wrap up Operacion Galgo also. There is so much hard evidence there, and most athletes involved have only started to run slower. That in itself is not sufficient punishment IMO.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
0
0
Almost seven years ago, ey?
Some well-paid lawyers will make sure that this case is stretched out for another year at least. The SoL will then take care of the rest.
Nobody gets hurt (except perhaps for a few black sheep).
 
Apr 1, 2009
179
0
0
I would love to have all those captured blood bags DNA tested. Are they still in custody or were they destroyed? Is there a chance that this would happen or are we past it now? If this trial gets messy & Fuentes starts naming names could it be brought to light? Id nearly pay to go to Spain to watch that unfold.
 
Aug 10, 2010
5,235
0
0
SiAp1984 said:
Nice. This might well take AC out of cycling for good. Depending what he and others will say :)
Alpuerto Clenbutador is probably saved by the 8 year WADA code limitation period.
 
Aug 2, 2010
1,438
0
0
MarkvW said:
Alpuerto Clenbutador is probably saved by the 8 year WADA code limitation period.
that's good. we need the best riders, especially the best. it's a victory for clean racing.
 
May 3, 2010
2,239
0
0
MarkvW said:
Alpuerto Clenbutador is probably saved by the 8 year WADA code limitation period.
Which may well explain the timing and why it is starting next year. Although I thought OP broke in 2006 which would make the deadline 2014 or is it based on when the doping took place?

Apparently not. Via Tennis has a steroid problem.

The USADA case against Armstrong stripped titles beyond the strict interpretation of the 8-year statute of limitations.

A few months ago, WADA's David Howman had this to say about the limitation period:

VN: Under the WADA Code there is a statute of limitations of eight years. This week, USADA announced a decision where that was overruled because the athlete had lied during his original testimony. It meant that results were stripped going back as far as 2001.

In this situation, would that eight year statute of limitations apply?

DH: Well, I think that case gives you a very good example on how it can work. It does apply, but the issue is when does it apply from. You have always got that interpretation to go through. It is not as simple as just marking off the calendar and saying ‘we can’t ask anything about January 1 onwards,’ because it is outside that eight year limit. It is not as simple as that. Nor is it in any country where there is any statute of limitations. So again it is one case at a time. In the recent USADA case you referred to, that is an indicator as to how that can work.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/11077/David-Howman-Interview-WADAs-director-general-speaks-about-ArmstrongUSPS-investigation.aspx#ixzz272QUvsUp
"The USADA is relying on the decision issued by the American Arbitration Association in the case of Eddy Hellebuyk, a marathoner suspended from the sport on doping charges, where the AAA determined that due to prior perjury, he would not be able to avail himself of the statute of limitations...If an accused acts in such a way as to prevent the discovery of the harm done (this has to go beyond merely being silent about it) - meaning the instrumentalities under his control were used to thwart the finding of a violation - equitable tolling could come into play to extend the statute of limitations beyond the statutory limits."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/legal-opinion-armstrongs-arguments-against-usada
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/operacion-puerto-reboot.html#comment-form
 
May 3, 2010
2,239
0
0
MarkvW said:
Alpuerto Clenbutador is probably saved by the 8 year WADA code limitation period.
Apparently not. Via Tennis has a steroid problem.

The USADA case against Armstrong stripped titles beyond the strict interpretation of the 8-year statute of limitations.

A few months ago, WADA's David Howman had this to say about the limitation period:

VN: Under the WADA Code there is a statute of limitations of eight years. This week, USADA announced a decision where that was overruled because the athlete had lied during his original testimony. It meant that results were stripped going back as far as 2001.

In this situation, would that eight year statute of limitations apply?

DH: Well, I think that case gives you a very good example on how it can work. It does apply, but the issue is when does it apply from. You have always got that interpretation to go through. It is not as simple as just marking off the calendar and saying ‘we can’t ask anything about January 1 onwards,’ because it is outside that eight year limit. It is not as simple as that. Nor is it in any country where there is any statute of limitations. So again it is one case at a time. In the recent USADA case you referred to, that is an indicator as to how that can work.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/11077/David-Howman-Interview-WADAs-director-general-speaks-about-ArmstrongUSPS-investigation.aspx#ixzz272QUvsUp
"The USADA is relying on the decision issued by the American Arbitration Association in the case of Eddy Hellebuyk, a marathoner suspended from the sport on doping charges, where the AAA determined that due to prior perjury, he would not be able to avail himself of the statute of limitations...If an accused acts in such a way as to prevent the discovery of the harm done (this has to go beyond merely being silent about it) - meaning the instrumentalities under his control were used to thwart the finding of a violation - equitable tolling could come into play to extend the statute of limitations beyond the statutory limits."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/legal-opinion-armstrongs-arguments-against-usada
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/operacion-puerto-reboot.html#comment-form
 
Jul 16, 2010
16,254
0
0
RTBF Sport ‏@RTBFsport
Affaire Puerto: Début du procès le 28 janvier - RTBF Cyclisme http://fb.me/1UeBaV00d
Openen
Beantwoorden Retweeten Toevoegen aan favorieten
4u PHILIPPE GILBERT ‏@Phil_Gilbert1
@RTBFsport on va peut être enfin parler des autres sports lié à ce réseau?
 
Jul 19, 2010
319
0
0
D-Queued said:
Any explanation on the purpose/indictment?

Dave.
This is the original Operacion Puerto. The charges against the doctors were not thrown out although the riders were not charged. Those charged: Eufemiano Fuentes, Yolanda Fuentes, José Luis Merino Batres, Manolo Saiz, Vicente Belda, and Ignacio Labarta. The trial starts in January of 2013. Contador, Beloki, etc. are called as witnesses.

From what I've read there are legal issues with the case. Precisely, the Spanish anti-doping law postdates 2006, and the then extant law was really useless - those charged are charged with a crime against public health.

That it takes 6 or 7 years to get to trial is normal in a complex case in Spain. The courts are as underfunded and understaffed as any other part of the Spanish public administration (contrary to conventional wisdom, in comparison with countries like France or Germany, Spain has very few public employees and they are not paid well - the courts are a particularly glaring example).
 
Jul 19, 2010
319
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Which may well explain the timing and why it is starting next year. Although I thought OP broke in 2006 which would make the deadline 2014 or is it based on when the doping took place?
As I explained in another post there is no need for convoluted reasoning to explain why the trial has been so delayed. All important trials in Spain are delayed by many years. It will be many years before the King's son-in-law Undangarin gets to trial, if he ever does. Corruption is sometimes a factor - in cases that involve corrupt politicians and real estate promoters - that is money - but here it is far more likely that the delay is simply the delay that is normal in all Spanish courts. There aren't enough judges, there aren't enough support staff, and records are still not computerized. There is no money because it has all been used to bail out banks.

In some sense the problem is, from a social point of view, far more serious than mere corruption - the judicial system is so delayed as to often seem a farce.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Fortunately for the riders, the UCI's amnesty program should be in place by the trial.
 
Jul 19, 2010
319
0
0
Maxiton said:
In Spanish law is there protection for the defendant against self incrimination?
Certainly there is. I doubt very much Contador, etc. will incriminate themselves ...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS