Bala Verde said:
That could be true. The only problem is, and that's admittedly something that certainly works through my, and quite possibly everyone's argument, I don't really know the intricate details of the case. I think we are all at a loss when it comes to "how the 'evidence' was obtained by CONI", "what is the detailed legal reasoning behind withholding evidence by Spanish courts", "to what extent CONI has or doesn't have jurisdiction over the alleged 'crime'" etc.
Well the "intricate details" I believe are to be found among the paperwork in CONI's office. From what I've read, though, in the Italian newspapers, CONI simply found a Spanish judge who was willing to release the Valve-Piti
bloodsack when Judge Serrano was on vacation. A simple ask the right source and you shall recieve thing. A DNA analysis was then performed and matched with the rider's blood CONI had in its posession from last year's Tour. A child's game really. And I don't think CONI was up to anything diabolical here, that is, I don't think Valverde's result was faked, that the blood in the Fuente's sack is indeed his own and was not manipulated by putting his blood in it. If I had to beleive that, then I'd be also believing CONI is a criminal organization. I don't think CONI is a criminal organization. Now let's say, for example, that the DNA test did not produce a match, then I think CONI would have pronounced that too. What probably happened behind the scenes is that CONI was looking for a high profile Spanish rider with the strongest probable connection to a OP bloodsack and to expose him, since the Spanish court had decided to just sit on the entire affair. And, well, you know, within these governing sport bodies talk circulates in regards to which atletes are doing what and CONI thus must have been pretty sure beforehand that Valverde was involved, was the easiest targget for its objectives.
As to "what is the detailed legal reasoning behind withholding evidence by Spanish courts": ahhh, that's the real enigma here! I'm convinced its a don't blow the lid cover up corporate and possibly political scandal. The corporations make a huge investment of sport and 200+ dopers exposed would make a terrible image of their investment, whereas the politicians, who are mere pawns of the corporate lobbies anyway, have allways known since Ancient Rome that if you "control the stadiums," in a manner of speaking, you control the masses.
Panem et circensis, as Martial said (Give them bread and circuses and they won't revolt). There just isn't any logical nor legal reason why not to investigate OP, other than to protect something. The public has a right to know which athletes, however, and from
which sports, gave their blood to Dr. Fuentes. Someone mentioned it all boils down to will to get to the bottom of this. That's what's missing, any semblence of will, on the part of Spain probably for the particular interests of the powers that be like those mentioned above. Though it has to be mentioned that in the newspapers I've read, some spanish citizens are rather apalled by the nation's ludicrous lack of verve and spine in this matter, and point out that it has taken Italy to do anyhting about it, which is a shame.
"To what extent CONI has or doesn't have jurisdiction over the alleged 'crime'"? That's something obviously for the court to decide.
[/QUOTE] Now this is something I agree with. It is rather ludicrous to see that a 'global' sport has to rely on national jurisdictions to level the playing field. It's as if the EU constitutes a united market, in which all companies of all nationalities are allowed to compete, but in which some companies unduly receive national subsidies, in order to stay/become more competitive. If left to national governments, no company of ones own nationality would be prevented from distorting the market. That's where the European Court of Justice offers a way out; when local governments fail to act, the case can be elevated to the European level...
Another example of international coop is the ICC in the Hague. When national governments are unwilling or unable to prosecute the gravest crimes (against humanity, crimes of war, genocide, crimes of aggression), the ICC steps up to the plate. It exercises jurisdiction in addition to existing domestic laws, and in Valverde's case, such a system would have kicked in to resolve it and give credence to an anti-doping stance.[/QUOTE]
The EU is notoriously inept when it comes to creating any form of consensus in such matters where national interests and international rivalries are at stake, as in individual national trade policies where one nation is protectionist, another more liberal in this regard based on which policy is the
most advantages in terms of the local economy. In other words local interests prevail over the common ones (provided they even exist) of the entire union. This naturally makes the EU Court rather more for show than a real regulatory force (like the UN when it tried to halt the American superpower's plans in Iraq, we saw hwo had the real power), which still resides in the respective national courts and ajudicates based what's best for the home country. That's what seems to be going on with Spain and this OP affair. Too much corporate power taking out the will to see real justice be done. While the rest of Europe can only sit back and watch nothing be done, without any union wide court stepping in and forcing Spain to act. Italy, in this sense, has apparantly decided not to just sit back and watch. Whether or not its cause is given legal legitimacy will determine whether or not anti-doping becomes more international or remains a rather farsical provincial affair within the local domains of the various soveriegn nations.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram