• 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!

Valverde Appeal To CAS

Apr 3, 2009
2
0
0
Visit site
Alexandro makes two points for his appeal neither addresses the realities of his involvement with Fuentes. The UCI have proved to be typically toothless with this rider given his pro tour white knight status. If he is clean then say so and let the evidence speak, if not take your punishemnnt and head back to Spain. It seams that the basic tennant for a rider when busted is to avoid and deflect we keep seeing it. He will not be missed and hopefully the UCI will grow some big ones and stop him from continuing this charade.
 
It looks like there might be a good chance that CAS will find for Valverde. What CAS should do is issue a statement along the lines of, "Although it has been unquestionably and scientifically proven that Valverde was doping, Italy does not have jurisdiction to ban a rider from another country." :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BroDeal said:
It looks like there might be a good chance that CAS will find for Valverde. What CAS should do is issue a statement along the lines of, "Although it has been unquestionably and scientifically proven that Valverde was doping, Italy does not have jurisdiction to ban a rider from another country." :)

it would make me happy.

close that case please!!!!.... it keeps coming back like the undead... .
 
Rocket said:
Hopefully the UCI will grow some big ones and stop him from continuing this charade.

I agree completely with your last statement there. But it's inexcusable that they can't seem to grow them and look at the entire OP case, but instead focus on one rider. A rider who should have been suspended THREE YEARS AGO!!!

Look at it this way. In the time since OP broke. Floyd Landis won the tour, tested positive, went through his marathon USADA hearing, then his CAS ruling, then served his suspension, and now he's been back racing for six months.

This entire Operation Puerto mess has gone on so long, they either need to open the whole thing up and look into every rider and sanction and fine them all at the same time, or declare some sort of amnesty, be done with it and drop the whole thing and consider it a lesson learned.
 
Italy has every right to ban a rider it has provved to have doped on its national soil. This is what Italy has done. No more no less.

Valverde is looking to exploit Euro disjointedness when it come to anything of a sentimental national value, as is his porting case, by attacking even Italy's legal juristiction right for first having acquired his Fuentes bloodsack and second, for having examined it against the rider's blood from the Tour last year when it passed briefly into Italy. He is thus basing his case not on his own inocence, which he knows isn't the case, but on legal technical grounds having to do with juristiction.

It all goes to show just how feeble the EU is when a cyclist from one country can play his defense cards on national rivalry sentiments and conspiracy theories. But even if Italy has political reasons for nailing him because only its riders suffered from OP and not Spanish ones, which from CONI's point of view seemed intollarable, the irrifutable scientific proof that Valverde was involved in OP should stand. And if TAS sides with Valverde, antidoping has taken another severe blow, whereas the issues the entire case raises demonstrates how weak, spineless and pathetic the EU is, for which this doping scandal is merely the least important indication of the fact.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
This entire Operation Puerto mess has gone on so long, they either need to open the whole thing up and look into every rider and sanction and fine them all at the same time, or declare some sort of amnesty, be done with it and drop the whole thing and consider it a lesson learned.

The entire OP mess has gone on for so long because of the world cup soccer players involved. It's all about money. Nobody wants to touch world cup soccer, which demonstrates that in our society it's all about money, whereas justice is a farce....a grotesque commedy in which hypocrisy plays the leading role, and farce steals the show!
 
Jun 19, 2009
2
0
0
Visit site
Basso Vs Valverde

Rocket said:
Alexandro makes two points for his appeal neither addresses the realities of his involvement with Fuentes. The UCI have proved to be typically toothless with this rider given his pro tour white knight status. If he is clean then say so and let the evidence speak, if not take your punishemnnt and head back to Spain. It seams that the basic tennant for a rider when busted is to avoid and deflect we keep seeing it. He will not be missed and hopefully the UCI will grow some big ones and stop him from continuing this charade.
When the scientific evidence came in Ivan Basso fessed up and took the time out. Valverde knows he is dead to rights but is trying to weasel out on some technicality. Maybe the CAS agrees with him, but cycling will be damaged if proven evil goes unpunished.
 
FixieMan said:
Maybe the CAS agrees with him, but cycling will be damaged if proven evil goes unpunished.
Uh, and what about the other 52 riders still from the OP blood bags, and dozens more from the books? Will ignoring those (quite a few riders likely still riding), while only pursuing Valverde be considered acceptable, and just?

CONI is pursuing Valverde because RFEC won't challenge Judge Serrano's ruling, the UCI is impotent, and perhaps most of all, because Valverde is a big fish. Going after small fishes, riders racing elsewhere (Sevilla or Mancebo, for example), or retired riders is of little political value to them.

When this matching of Valverde's DNA got going CONI said it was the tip of the iceberg, and they planned on matching all the blood bags. Now, how many ever months later, not a single investigation into another rider has even been started. They have gone after Valverde, and only Valverde.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
In essence, we see two entirely different approaches. CONI which is going after a current top rider, very high profile, and the UCI with their passport going after five has-beens and never-weres etc. Another difference is that CONI is progressing in a proactive way, while the UCI is reactive.

Valverde is an extra burden on CONI. In a perfect world, CONI would police Italian affairs, while Valverde should have been taken on by their Spanish equivalent (or, since they're dragging their feet, by the corresponding international organization). In that sense, I think one can understand why CONI is more or less stopping with Valverde. It's not really their job in the first place.

CONI is making a point here on corruption and doping in cycling. And they chose the most high profile case they can get their hands on to make this point. Now contrast this with the UCI. They're trying to make a point on their passport system. Do you see how the UCI choses to make their point. Do you notice the difference? I think these two events exemplify the problem in cycling and show the way where we should look for the root cause.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestones said:
In essence, we see two entirely different approaches. CONI which is going after a current top rider, very high profile, and the UCI with their passport going after five has-beens and never-weres etc.


uci gives the profile data to a panel of nine "experts" ... there are no names attached to the data.

the panel returns it's findings to uci.

how do they "go after" someone in a system like that?
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
rhubroma said:
Italy has every right to ban a rider it has provved to have doped on its national soil. This is what Italy has done. No more no less.

CONI have not proved Valverde doped in Italy. That's the point. They have his DNA from blood bags stored in Spain and DNA from the 2008 TdF when it traveled through Italy. The fact that the DNA matches does not prove he doped in Italy because 1. The blood bags were stored in Spain (not Italy), and 2. The two DNA samples are a minimum of 2 years apart. They cannot and will not be able to prove that he doped in Italy.

I'm with Alpe on this one. Get them all or none. Time to leave this mess behind.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
jackhammer111 said:
uci gives the profile data to a panel of nine "experts" ... there are no names attached to the data.

the panel returns it's findings to uci.

how do they "go after" someone in a system like that?

They put 5 names on one list which is made public and send another list of names to the teams for them to sort out their own riders, never mind the Gusev backlash. Who makes the selection which name goes on which list? The panel of experts which apparently doesn't even know whose data they're looking at? Somehow I doubt that.

Elapid: DNA doesn't change. It is entirely irrelevant how much time elapsed between two DNA tests. If they match they match, if they don't they don't. CONI showed that a bag of Valverde's blood was stored by a Spanish gynecologist who is a known doping doctor. This is sufficient evidence for doping and consequently they banned this particular rider from riding in Italy. The whole thing wouldn't be any issue if the Spanish authorities did not drag their feet.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
Cobblestones said:
Elapid: DNA doesn't change. It is entirely irrelevant how much time elapsed between two DNA tests. If they match they match, if they don't they don't. CONI showed that a bag of Valverde's blood was stored by a Spanish gynecologist who is a known doping doctor. This is sufficient evidence for doping and consequently they banned this particular rider from riding in Italy. The whole thing wouldn't be any issue if the Spanish authorities did not drag their feet.

I know DNA doesn't change, but Rhubroma's point was that CONI was proving Valverde doped in Italy. Based on the bag of blood being in Spain, they cannot use the DNA evidence to state that he doped in Italy. The fact the DNA collected in 2008 in Italy matches the DNA from his blood bags in Spain does not mean he doped in Italy. Doped, yes. In Italy, cannot be proven.

In regards to your statement about the Spanish authorities dragging their feet, I've written at length regarding this on other threads. In quick summary, the Spanish judiciary made the correct decision because their antidoping law had not come into effect and they could not apply this law retrospectively. The REFC could not act because the Spanish judiciary prevented the evidence from being used in any other trials.
 
Jun 9, 2009
320
0
0
Visit site
cobblestones coni are effectivly charging sanctioning a forgein rider for something he did in his own country by this logic they could also jail tom boonen for snorting coke in belguim it doesn't make sense
 
May 31, 2009
3
0
0
Visit site
this whole story just makes me wonder what really goes on behind the scenes in cycling, the whole politics i mean.
for example, if boonen gets caught with cocaine(which wouldn't even be reported by most federations if out of competition) it is a scandal, BUT
Valverde's participation in Fuentes has been PROVEN by a dna test, yet nobody cares(since months, months, months..........)
that's more than ridiculous!!!
it's probably a lot about visibility and timing, but i think the main reason has to be "Behind the scenes politics"
otherwise this s*** would be impossible

that leaves me wondering what else goes on "unseen from the public"
 
Mar 11, 2009
79
0
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
Uh, and what about the other 52 riders still from the OP blood bags, and dozens more from the books? Will ignoring those (quite a few riders likely still riding), while only pursuing Valverde be considered acceptable, and just?

Probably not "just." But not prosecuting one person is not a very good reason not to prosecute another. I think there is a good deal of getting: the big fish in the pond here. I think it could scare the little fish into not doping. In the past the little ones were picked off and no one cared. Maybe some big ones getting caught and punished will make a difference.
 
toppermost said:
Probably not "just." But not prosecuting one person is not a very good reason not to prosecute another. I think there is a good deal of getting: the big fish in the pond here. I think it could scare the little fish into not doping. In the past the little ones were picked off and no one cared. Maybe some big ones getting caught and punished will make a difference.

So Italy that has mached a rider's blood bag from Puerto to his own blood from the Tour when it passed through Italy, can't ban him from racing on Italian soil!?

Excelent legal logic there, impecable that...which is just what will probably be put into effect. Ban everyone and not the ones they have managed to identify. Nice treatment for Basso and Scarponi now isn't that. But it's also the same legal logic tha applies two measures to the same thing. Well following this scheme, which is what is really happened and that's the nauseating truth, anti-doping will never have a chance in heeelllll.
 
rhubroma said:
So Italy that has mached a rider's blood bag from Puerto to his own blood from the Tour when it passed through Italy, can't ban him from racing on Italian soil!?

I would guess that Piti will argue that in cycling's structure a rider's own national team has responsibility for sanctioning a rider. Plus Italy cannot show that Valverde doped in an Italian race.

The reason why only Valverde has been sanctioned may be that he is the only target available. Looking at the list of code names, some riders are unknown, some are retired, some have already been sanctioned, and some are exiled. How many are known, actively racing, and available for the Italians to take a blood sample from?
 
1. Why arte the Spanish authorities sitting on this case, OP?
2. Why are the Spanish authorites covering up their riders and doing nothing about the biggest doping scandal in history?
3. What are the conflict of interests behind this lameness and OP?

Sport is dead! They have put it in a coffin. And we are all mourning it at it's very own funeral!
 
rhubroma said:
Of course in this way, the omerta is protected...

I don't think omerta has anything to do with the legal defense. It is just Valverde scrambling to use whatever legal argument he can to get off the hook. Omerta will kick in if the powers that be realize that Valverde is a lost cause, at which point a way to throw him under the bus will be found no matter what rules have to be bent.
 
Jun 17, 2009
5
0
0
Visit site
Valverde & the blood bag

O.P. has gone on long enough, so I`m having my twopennyworth.
Until Judge Serrano releases ALL the info on O.P. this farce will continue.
Why no footballers named, why no athletes named, why no tennis players named. Answer Big Bucks, plus cycling has a tainted past so the sport is an easy target.
Until Judge Serrano comes clean (no pun intended) Valverde will appear to many to be guilty. Is he sinned against or sinner?
 
There's other arguments he can use, and his legal team have broached them:

• His plasma was found in one bag in Fuentes office, with traces of EPO in it. No hard evidence is shown that the EPO was ever in Valverde's body, nor that the red blood cells re-injected back into his body. Logic indicates that's what they did. But no proof exists of it.

• No date is shown on the bag of plasma, or in Fuentes ledger. Logic indicates 2004-2005. But no proof says it's so.

• No concrete paperwork or communication is known to exist (such as phone records, bank transfers or FAXes) to indicate a doping deal, or doping connections between Valverde and Fuentes other than Fuentes scribbled and coded notes in his ledgers.

Valverde and his legal team are possibly going to argue that blood was taken from Valverde when he was possibly on Kelme. He didn't know what it was for and only told "testing", and moved on to Caisse later, never having much more than casual passing with Fuentes. Granted, all logic says he had the blood drawn off, treated, and re-injected. No one would drain off that much blood for "testing" only...right? Well, try proving otherwise.

I'm not saying he didn't dope. I've said all along he did. I just think this whole thing is a mess, and he's being singled out. I have say though, I think his chances at CAS are possible. And I'm not sure if that would be a good, or bad thing for cycling.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:

Some very good points. The second point though, can't they test 'the age' of blood, instead of inferring it logically?

The problem for anti-doping orgaisations is to come up with indisputable and undeniable evidence. Much 'circumstantial' or 'inferential' evidence seems to be insufficient to get a conviction. Why that's the case, beats me.

Didn't the same happen in the Gusev case?

On the other hand, the constructions they came up with, to prep and store the blood, were quite ingeniously devised (on purpose I assume). No rider had any D lying around at home, which would surely have led to convictions. That's what allows them to possibly argue that they were unaware of what happened to it when they left the blood with the dr...
 

TRENDING THREADS