Valverde case delayed AGAIN!

[Galic Ho]

Strange sidebar you've taken. Momma and Poppa own the car together no matter whose name is on the registration. Marital assets are joint, and you are free to joyride with Momma's consent alone.

There are some strange twists in this case. As Elapid says, in most judicial systems laws cannot be applied to a point in time when they did not exist. Now, why Serrano chose to release foreigners' samples but not Valverde's is something I would like to learn more about. At first glance it smells, but there is probably more to the story.

Are you suggesting the Judge is dirty? Come on, pull the other one. A judge of Serrano's level has one option. Apply the law. The answer was obvious. There were no legal restrictions that could stop him withholding evidence on the foreigners but for Spanish citizens the law restricted his ability. Would you call this enabling doping or intent to "cover up." Judging by the opinions here, most forumist would. Have they ever sat through law lectures? Probably not, otherwise they would show more respect. This is not about doping and it hasn't been for quite some time, yet 50% and more of the arguments and opinions here ignore the legal aspect because the poster falls into the "I hate doping." Who doesn't?

Ever watched a legal tv show? Ever seen an episode where the guilty as hell defendant skipped a murder or rape charge because the letter of the law was not followed. The smoking gun is the blood bag. Take that away and what case is there? There is not one. CONI have been trying to find anyway to get that into play...even manipulating Serrano's underlings to hand over data when he was on holiday. That is akin to the tv show detectives harassing and coercing a suspect or failing to wait for a warrant. Eagerness that should have been kicked into line. Ask yourself what is the motive for that? Justice, revenge, or simple opportunistic behaviour of lawyers who like to win? I'd say all three at the same time.

And one more thing, don't for a second think any of you (I won't name names) can try the bully tactic on guys like RTMcFadden and call him a doping apologist because he had the foresight and knowledge to cover and mention an aspect of this case your intellect did not. You wouldn't try that tactic in the real world, so please, keep it above the belt here and be polite in the virtual world. Most of the people here in the Clinic are realists and suspect a lot of what is mentioned in the Clinic has truth. Making a case for Valverde as I stated has nothing to do with him being dirty or guilty, let alone being a fan of his riding. For some, it is simply about the application of the law. Please do not mistake the two again.

 

[Zerak-Tul]

Guys, brains please! Ulrich, Basso and Scarponi are not Spanish. Their respective racing federations in Italy and Switzerland asked for the evidence and had legal precedent to use it. Spains laws at the time did not allow authorities to do squat.

I am fed up with the posturing and simple mindedness of some people here on this forum with this matter. The Spanish Minister for Sport in 2006 was furious! She was ****ed, upset and shocked, like you are, but knew that legislation needed to have been in place in 2006 for any criminal charges to stick for straight out doping. This has been mentioned dozens of times over the past 12 months. If you were to lazy or stupid to figure this out then consider this your lesson. The Spanish were not protecting anyone. You will never be able to prove that, because the legislation to formally charge a rider as not in place. It is now.

Can anyone explain to me level of authority European Courts have. Can CAS overturn a Spanish Court? I didn't think they could. If Valverde went to the European High Court would they declare any negative CAS ruling "illegal and beyond their scope and ruling?" Because if this happened in Australia, you'd have been told to go F%#K yourself. Charming isn't it?

Wether or not Spain has/had laws that could be used to put him on trial (criminal or civil) is irrellevant. I'm pretty sure the UCI/WADA has given up on the spanish judicial systen by now. What matters is that in order for the spanish cycling federation to get permission from the UCI to give licenses to spanish riders, the federation and their riders must abide by UCI rules and guidelines.

Think of it as a contract. Riders agree to follow the directions of the national federation or they will not be allowed to ride, and the national federations agree to follow the rules of the UCI or they will not be allowed to grant licenses for UCI events/races/etc.

Part of that contract is that riders submit themselves to the authority of the CAS; they get to make decisions on matters regarding riders contracts, (for example, doping could be considered a breach of contract).
The spanish goverment would not interfere if any other company sues a spanish employee for breach of contract, (don't even get me started on crying Human Rights violations....) they'd let the judicial system handle it.

As for jurisdiction, there's a reason the CAS has been headquartered in Switzerland (just about the most neutral location you could think of), it's so people will not complain about natural interest of where the court is located. This way all riders with a license from a UCI-approved federation go to the same courts, instead of each country having their own say over their own riders.
Valverde along with all other riders agree to a contract (their racing license), that if any disputes would need arbitration, that they will be deferred to the CAS, instead of a local (national) arbitration court.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are you suggesting the Judge is dirty? Come on, pull the other one. A judge of Serrano's level has one option. Apply the law. The answer was obvious. There were no legal restrictions that could stop him withholding evidence on the foreigners but for Spanish citizens the law restricted his ability. Would you call this enabling doping or intent to "cover up." Judging by the opinions here, most forumist would. Have they ever sat through law lectures? Probably not, otherwise they would show more respect. This is not about doping and it hasn't been for quite some time, yet 50% and more of the arguments and opinions here ignore the legal aspect because the poster falls into the "I hate doping." Who doesn't?

Ever watched a legal tv show? Ever seen an episode where the guilty as hell defendant skipped a murder or rape charge because the letter of the law was not followed. The smoking gun is the blood bag. Take that away and what case is there? There is not one. CONI have been trying to find anyway to get that into play...even manipulating Serrano's underlings to hand over data when he was on holiday. That is akin to the tv show detectives harassing and coercing a suspect or failing to wait for a warrant. Eagerness that should have been kicked into line. Ask yourself what is the motive for that? Justice, revenge, or simple opportunistic behaviour of lawyers who like to win? I'd say all three at the same time.

And one more thing, don't for a second think any of you (I won't name names) can try the bully tactic on guys like RTMcFadden and call him a doping apologist because he had the foresight and knowledge to cover and mention an aspect of this case your intellect did not. You wouldn't try that tactic in the real world, so please, keep it above the belt here and be polite in the virtual world. Most of the people here in the Clinic are realists and suspect a lot of what is mentioned in the Clinic has truth. Making a case for Valverde as I stated has nothing to do with him being dirty or guilty, let alone being a fan of his riding. For some, it is simply about the application of the law. Please do not mistake the two again.

No - I have never sat through Law Lectures... do the teach Justice there?

If Valverde wants to take a case against CONI for 'illegally obtaining' the information used to convict him then why has he not gone ahead and sued Torri and CONI as he said he would in May last year?

 

[Ripper]

...

Sure thing there Valvi fanboy, you go on your rant. It doesn't matter though, because all the legal language in the world won't change today's ruling that, gee, the CONI can ban him in Italy and, gee, the UCI may just apply there own regulations to ban him elsewhere, regardless of where Spain's fed is.

Boo hoo, your interpretation of justice might not hold up. Lawyer by chance?

 

[Zerak-Tul]

Are you suggesting the Judge is dirty? Come on, pull the other one. A judge of Serrano's level has one option. Apply the law. The answer was obvious. There were no legal restrictions that could stop him withholding evidence on the foreigners but for Spanish citizens the law restricted his ability. Would you call this enabling doping or intent to "cover up." Judging by the opinions here, most forumist would. Have they ever sat through law lectures? Probably not, otherwise they would show more respect. This is not about doping and it hasn't been for quite some time, yet 50% and more of the arguments and opinions here ignore the legal aspect because the poster falls into the "I hate doping." Who doesn't?

Ever watched a legal tv show? Ever seen an episode where the guilty as hell defendant skipped a murder or rape charge because the letter of the law was not followed. The smoking gun is the blood bag. Take that away and what case is there? There is not one. CONI have been trying to find anyway to get that into play...even manipulating Serrano's underlings to hand over data when he was on holiday. That is akin to the tv show detectives harassing and coercing a suspect or failing to wait for a warrant. Eagerness that should have been kicked into line. Ask yourself what is the motive for that? Justice, revenge, or simple opportunistic behaviour of lawyers who like to win? I'd say all three at the same time.

And one more thing, don't for a second think any of you (I won't name names) can try the bully tactic on guys like RTMcFadden and call him a doping apologist because he had the foresight and knowledge to cover and mention an aspect of this case your intellect did not. You wouldn't try that tactic in the real world, so please, keep it above the belt here and be polite in the virtual world. Most of the people here in the Clinic are realists and suspect a lot of what is mentioned in the Clinic has truth. Making a case for Valverde as I stated has nothing to do with him being dirty or guilty, let alone being a fan of his riding. For some, it is simply about the application of the law. Please do not mistake the two again.

Again, it's all fine and dandy that Serrano says "We had no laws in 2006 under which we could convict Valverde of anything". That's just unfortunate, and I agree that retroactive laws are a bad thing.

However, UCI/WADA/CONI are all lining up saying that they have contracts/jurisdictions under which they would be able to ban Valverde from racing - Ban him from racing, they're not asking the spanish courts to hand over Valverde so they can put him in jail.
They have a contract with Valverde, and under that contract, if he dopes he's agreed that the UCI would have the permission to ban him from racing / fine him, and this is what they're looking to get done.

But this is where it gets messy, because Serrano is(was) refusing to hand over the evidence that the spanish goverment secured from OP, that the UCI/WADA/CONI wants so they can use it in their case against Valverde.
Do you see the problem here?

 

[Ripper]

No - I have never sat through Law Lectures... do the teach Justice there?

If Valverde wants to take a case against CONI for 'illegally obtaining' the information used to convict him then why has he not gone ahead and sued Torri and CONI as he said he would in May last year?

Because it's all about delaying the inevitable.

 

[Galic Ho]

While you have called those that question your hero simpleminded and stupid it is clear you have no idea of what is actually happening with Valverde. Perhaps you are too lazy to find out?

This has nothing to do with if Spain had a law against doping. This has nothing to do with the Spanish courts. This is about if Valverde can be SANCTIONED by the CONI and the UCI. Spanish and European courts cannot overrule CAS. You may dream about a court allowing this to happen but this would be "Simpleminded and Stupid".

It is not "Illegal and beyond their scope" for CAS to rule on rider suspensions. This is exactly what CAS does. Spanish courts have nothing to do with this.

Valverde is a doper, a cheat, and a liar. For the last 4 years he has played a stupid game that has only succeed in making him look like a idiot in the same manner as Landis and Hamilton. He is about to get a nice 2 year vacation....he should get an extra year for being an idiot.

I take back what I said. I will name names. You are being a tool today. Seriously. Yes he is a doper, but answer the questions I asked. You didn't. My hero a bike rider? Yeah right. But play the man instead of the matter. The hating in here has to stop somewhere. Want me to take a swing at America and all the sporting frauds you can find from your home nation? I won't because it will be too easy.

I'll dumb it down for you and everyone with an IQ under 120. It has everything to do with Spanish Courts. Evidence, you know, the black book, Fuentes clinic and blood bags were all ruled under Spanish Law. CAS ruling borrowed from these! CAS is a court, making a ruling regarding an Italian Doping Ruling against a Spaniard based upon supposedly sealed Spanish evidence. The DNA, was from the Spanish Courts and Spanish Laboratory. It was legally sealed. It does not matter if it is an exact match. Valverde or anyone in that situation has no moral responsibility to come clean when he has legal avenues available. Race Radio, you may shun his behaviour and I may as well, but the avenue does exist for him to claim innocence. Legally he is. Realistically he is guilty as hell.

Now maybe where you come from, some arbitrary body like the UCI can just walk in and tell people what to do but national governing bodies trump random sporting bodies. In essence they have to give the ok for the UCI and CONI to use the evidence. Why? I could for the sake of it create my own little corporate body and profess I have power. Nothing happens without compromise, and CAS is not exclusive to this. Their authority has to be recognised and endorsed. CAS is basically and oversight committee. As I said, the blood bag is the smoking gun. The evidence was reportedly sealed. Serrano said so himself. What I have been wanting was somebody to clear that up so some form of chain of authority can be seen. Did CONI lie? From everything I've read for months now it would appear so. Until I hear conclusive evidence then I have every reason to suspect that CAS have overstepped their mark and will have a lot of trouble on their hands. Chains of authority must be followed. Listen to what Valverde's lawyers have said. They all but confirmed they believe the ruling is illegal.

Oh and don't try and tell me that CAS cannot be over turned. Are they the highest Court in Europe? That's what I thought. I'll be hearing silence on that point from everyone. European Courts cannot over rule CAS? Who gave authority to CAS? They can be over ruled, unless they are the highest court. Just like here in Australia, the ultimate ruling is by the high court for any respective nation. I asked a bunch of questions, wanted a solid answer and didn't get one. Yeah, fanboy and doping apologist. No, I simply want to understand.

 

[Ripper]

Again, it's all fine and dandy that Serrano says "We had no laws in 2006 under which we could convict Valverde of anything". That's just unfortunate, and I agree that retroactive laws are a bad thing.

However, UCI/WADA/CONI are all lining up saying that they have contracts/jurisdictions under which they would be able to ban Valverde from racing - Ban him from racing, they're not asking the spanish courts to hand over Valverde so they can put him in jail.
They have a contract with Valverde, and under that contract, if he dopes he's agreed that the UCI would have the permission to ban him from racing / fine him, and this is what they're looking to get done.

But this is where it gets messy, because Serrano is(was) refusing to hand over the evidence that the spanish goverment secured from OP, that the UCI/WADA/CONI wants so they can use it in their case against Valverde.
Do you see the problem here?

Quit trying to reason with Jib Jab.

 

[biker jk]

For some, it is simply about the application of the law. Please do not mistake the two again.

We shouldn't be mistaken that Valverde was proven to be a doper even if doping wasn't illegal in Spain at the time.

 

[Galic Ho]

Quit trying to reason with Jib Jab.

Anyone want to take bets on whether Valverde will be in France in July? This thread certainly has divided opinions. Not that I am saying mine is correct, I have been mostly asking questions. Hence the (?) question marks. Ban him, don't ban him. Either way this doesn't add credibility to an already tarnished UCI. This whole issue is one big, "He said, she said" mess. Everyone leaves covered in dirt.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I take back what I said. I will name names. You are being a tool today. Seriously. Yes he is a doper, but answer the questions I asked. You didn't. My hero a bike rider? Yeah right. But play the man instead of the matter. The hating in here has to stop somewhere. Want me to take a swing at America and all the sporting frauds you can find from your home nation? I won't because it will be too easy.

I'll dumb it down for you and everyone with an IQ under 120. It has everything to do with Spanish Courts. Evidence, you know, the black book, Fuentes clinic and blood bags were all ruled under Spanish Law. CAS ruling borrowed from these! CAS is a court, making a ruling regarding an Italian Doping Ruling against a Spaniard based upon supposedly sealed Spanish evidence. The DNA, was from the Spanish Courts and Spanish Laboratory. It was legally sealed. It does not matter if it is an exact match. Valverde or anyone in that situation has no moral responsibility to come clean when he has legal avenues available. Race Radio, you may shun his behaviour and I may as well, but the avenue does exist for him to claim innocence. Legally he is. Realistically he is guilty as hell.

Now maybe where you come from, some arbitrary body like the UCI can just walk in and tell people what to do but national governing bodies trump random sporting bodies. In essence they have to give the ok for the UCI and CONI to use the evidence. Why? I could for the sake of it create my own little corporate body and profess I have power. Nothing happens without compromise, and CAS is not exclusive to this. Their authority has to be recognised and endorsed. CAS is basically and oversight committee. As I said, the blood bag is the smoking gun. The evidence was reportedly sealed. Serrano said so himself. What I have been wanting was somebody to clear that up so some form of chain of authority can be seen. Did CONI lie? From everything I've read for months now it would appear so. Until I hear conclusive evidence then I have every reason to suspect that CAS have overstepped their mark and will have a lot of trouble on their hands. Chains of authority must be followed. Listen to what Valverde's lawyers have said. They all but confirmed they believe the ruling is illegal.

Oh and don't try and tell me that CAS cannot be over turned. Are they the highest Court in Europe? That's what I thought. I'll be hearing silence on that point from everyone. European Courts cannot over rule CAS? Who gave authority to CAS? They can be over ruled, unless they are the highest court. Just like here in Australia, the ultimate ruling is by the high court for any respective nation. I asked a bunch of questions, wanted a solid answer and didn't get one. Yeah, fanboy and doping apologist. No, I simply want to understand.

So, CAS are an oversight committee? Is that what the C stands for?

Of course CAS can be overturned - and indeed cases have been taken to the Swiss Federal Courts, however this is fromthe CAS website:
Judicial recourse to the Swiss Federal Tribunal is allowed on a very limited number of grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of elementary procedural rules (e.g. violation of the right to a fair hearing) or incompatibility with public policy.** **

You keep refering to the fact that Judge Serrano sealed the case - I have been checking earlier today and have been unable to find that, except in a blog, when was this ruling made by Judge Serrano?

 

[Galic Ho]

We shouldn't be mistaken that Valverde was proven to be a doper even if doping wasn't illegal in Spain at the time.

Note my other comments. I clearly said he was doping and guilty. I made that distinction so people were aware I am not a doping or Valverde apologist. People tend to see a point of view on these forums (especially with dopers) and then flame the poster. Note the tone towards RTMcFadden earlier on. I read on and it had changed. Why? People jumped to conclusions and made sweeping assumptions and generalisations.

My points all come down to legal jurisdiction. Race Radio's multiple comments, (I found some I hadn't read) suggested CAS trumps everyone. My understanding and education suggest that isn't quite the case. I basically wanted someone to point me to a court ruling or legislation that says so. Until then I was asking questions. I won't anymore, because this is boring. Until they ban Valverde he will keep on racing. It is his right, regardless of how guilty he is or fair/unfair the entire situation is.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Note my other comments. I clearly said he was doping and guilty. I made that distinction so people were aware I am not a doping or Valverde apologist. People tend to see a point of view on these forums (especially with dopers) and then flame the poster. Note the tone towards RTMcFadden earlier on. I read on and it had changed. Why? People jumped to conclusions and made sweeping assumptions and generalisations.

My points all come down to legal jurisdiction. Race Radio's multiple comments, (I found some I hadn't read) suggested CAS trumps everyone. My understanding and education suggest that isn't quite the case. I basically wanted someone to point me to a court ruling or legislation that says so. Until then I was asking questions. I won't anymore, because this is boring. Until they ban Valverde he will keep on racing. It is his right, regardless of how guilty he is or fair/unfair the entire situation is.

Don't switch off your clock just yet...... when did Judge Serrano seal the evidence?

 

[Galic Ho]

So, CAS are an oversight committee? Is that what the C stands for?

Of course CAS can be overturned - and indeed cases have been taken to the Swiss Federal Courts, however this is fromthe CAS website:
Judicial recourse to the Swiss Federal Tribunal is allowed on a very limited number of grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of elementary procedural rules (e.g. violation of the right to a fair hearing) or incompatibility with public policy.** **

You keep refering to the fact that Judge Serrano sealed the case - I have been checking earlier today and have been unable to find that, except in a blog, when was this ruling made by Judge Serrano?

Sealed evidence. Typo on my behalf. I haven't been over this stuff in months as I have more pressing matters than following every CAS ruling. Icefire mentioned it in detail earlier. The evidence, Fuentes blood bags and presumably some of the paper work, were all sealed. As I said, the Spanish Sports Minister was not pleased at all. She wanted action years ago, but Spanish law prevented it. Does that sound like a cover up or someone seeking natural justice? But most posters forget that aspect or are simply unaware and suggest the Spanish are deceitful as a whole. They aren't. Deceit is an individual trait that at times can be applied to a body large. No need to tar all the Spanish in this instance.

As for CAS being an oversight Committee. Metaphor. They are a Court, but don't really act like a Court. Hypothetical: I take my complaints to the oversight committee and they tell my bosses or bullies to get in line. Does this sound like CAS? CONI and the UCI are seeking oversight from a committee/panel, aptly named as a Court of Arbitration in their body of interest, sport and want action against the bullies/bad boys. All I want to know is did they play fairly? For months now I have had reason to suspect CONI did not.

Can I prove it? Do I care? Not really, but it would be nice to be fully informed and remove all doubt so as to make a sound rational conclusion and not just say, "Valverde is dirt and that is it." Why? Because if a short cut was taken to punish a "definite doper/bad guy" what happens when an innocent person is pursued as rigorously? There are cases (small %) that appear and the defendant is innocent. Authorities need to tone down the enthusiasm and follow the letter of the law so as to ensure an innocent person is never slandered and tarred. That is one of the founding principles of justice and the law. Which requires those with knowledge and understanding to ignore all the dopers and their dry, stretched denial rhetoric.

 

[blackcat]

For some, it is simply about the application of the law. Please do not mistake the two again.

This is where you are wrong. If you are implying the law is apolitical, free and impartial from influence, you are dead wrong.

If this was 98 France, Puerto would have been pursued like Festina. There were numerous statutes they could have used, if there was the political will. The investigation went nowhere, because political fate deemed it.

Stop being so bellicose and cut the bombast, makes you look foolish.

They could have sent Fuentes to jail. Heck, Willy Voet, before he started posting here, was sent to jail. A freekin' bus driver. Anything but a courier.

Politics. They shut it down. Why do you think Usain Bolt can train all he likes in Jamaica and be free and out of reach of WADA.

There were probably 40 riders seeing Fuentes, and over two dozen for blood services. Why have only a few been sanctioned.

Why Landis, and not Armstrong?

Why Basso but not Contador?

Why are Anglophones seen as cleaner?

It is not about truth and the impartiality of the law, and doping regulatations. You wont find an answer in the legal statutes.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sealed evidence. Typo on my behalf. I haven't been over this stuff in months as I have more pressing matters than following every CAS ruling. Icefire mentioned it in detail earlier. The evidence, Fuentes blood bags and presumably some of the paper work, were all sealed. As I said, the Spanish Sports Minister was not pleased at all. She wanted action years ago, but Spanish law prevented it. Does that sound like a cover up or someone seeking natural justice? But most posters forget that aspect or are simply unaware and suggest the Spanish are deceitful as a whole. They aren't. Deceit is an individual trait that at times can be applied to a body large. No need to tar all the Spanish in this instance.

As for CAS being an oversight Committee. Metaphor. They are a Court, but don't really act like a Court. Hypothetical: I take my complaints to the oversight committee and they tell my bosses or bullies to get in line. Does this sound like CAS? CONI and the UCI are seeking oversight from a committee/panel, aptly named as a Court of Arbitration in their body of interest, sport and want action against the bullies/bad boys. All I want to know is did they play fairly? For months now I have had reason to suspect CONI did not.

Can I prove it? Do I care? Not really, but it would be nice to be fully informed and remove all doubt so as to make a sound rational conclusion and not just say, "Valverde is dirt and that is it." Why? Because if a short cut was taken to punish a "definite doper/bad guy" what happens when an innocent person is pursued as rigorously? There are cases (small %) that appear and the defendant is innocent. Authorities need to tone down the enthusiasm and follow the letter of the law so as to ensure an innocent person is never slandered and tarred. That is one of the founding principles of justice and the law. Which requires those with knowledge and understanding to ignore all the dopers and their dry, stretched denial rhetoric.

Actually, the first person to use the word "deceit" on this thread was 'RTMcfadden, he used that on CONI.

Also the Spanish Sports Minister is a he- Jaime Lissavetzky, or was that a metaphor too?
At one point Lissavetzky said he "believes that over time Operación Puerto will be viewed as a positive outcome for the sport and a "clear message" in the fight against doping."

He sounds like most politicians.

BTW- I have never stated that the Spanish Court were incorrect in what they have done - however I do believe the decision taken by the Government not to apply the new laws retroactively was purely a political decision.

But again, when was the 'evidence sealed' by Serrano?

 

[blackcat]

Sealed evidence. Typo on my behalf. I haven't been over this stuff in months as I have more pressing matters than following every CAS ruling. Icefire mentioned it in detail earlier. The evidence, Fuentes blood bags and presumably some of the paper work, were all sealed. As I said, the Spanish Sports Minister was not pleased at all. She wanted action years ago, but Spanish law prevented it. Does that sound like a cover up or someone seeking natural justice? But most posters forget that aspect or are simply unaware and suggest the Spanish are deceitful as a whole. They aren't. Deceit is an individual trait that at times can be applied to a body large. No need to tar all the Spanish in this instance.

You think politicians tell the truth? You think the Sports Minister wished to prosecute this case. Gullible much? Nothing to do with a Spanish mentality.

 

[frenchfry]

No, it'a about taking away his livelyhood. In other words, it's about denying him the ability to earn a living.

All I know is if I ever get in trouble in Spain, I'm call Valverde's lawyers.

Of course some would say that it's all about him stealing a living from those who ride clean.

The "denying the ability to earn a living" argument is a favorite for doping apologists. Of course the victims (clean riders) are just wimps that deserve what they get.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Think of it as a contract.

Don't think of it as a Contract. IT IS A CONTRACT, in every way shape and form. You provide them money in the form of a registration fee and they provide you with a license that allows you to enter races. Quid pro quo.

 

[blackcat]

Note my other comments. I clearly said he was doping and guilty. I made that distinction so people were aware I am not a doping or Valverde apologist. People tend to see a point of view on these forums (especially with dopers) and then flame the poster. Note the tone towards RTMcFadden earlier on. I read on and it had changed. Why? People jumped to conclusions and made sweeping assumptions and generalisations.

My points all come down to legal jurisdiction. Race Radio's multiple comments, (I found some I hadn't read) suggested CAS trumps everyone. My understanding and education suggest that isn't quite the case. I basically wanted someone to point me to a court ruling or legislation that says so. Until then I was asking questions. I won't anymore, because this is boring. Until they ban Valverde he will keep on racing. It is his right, regardless of how guilty he is or fair/unfair the entire situation is.

I think the CAS will view the release of Ullrich and Basso's blood bags, in light of any appeal to procedure by Valverde. It seems frankly, post-hoc and expedient, a political decision to protect a rainmaker.

Either Basso and Ullrich get the same protection as Valverde, or they do not.

 

[teresa]

Teresa

Used to think he was innocent but now - surely if innocent one would want to prove this right away. Why didn't he himself request the Spanish judge to send the evidence in question ? Both others (blood bags) were sent - and all these appeals doesn't seem like innocence to me. And what about the other riders that he is depriving of results etc because he is riding - I think he could have had this cleared up long ago.

 

[icefire]

BTW- I have never stated that the Spanish Court were incorrect in what they have done - however I do believe the decision taken by the Government not to apply the new laws retroactively was purely a political decision.

It is a general principle of the philosophy of law, that a new Law is only applied retroactively if it grants benefits or rights on those to whom it applies.

Retroactive punishment open the door for me finding out what you did yesterday and enacting a new law to punish you. Don't take it personally, though

 

[Race Radio]

I take back what I said. I will name names. You are being a tool today. Seriously. Yes he is a doper, but answer the questions I asked. You didn't. My hero a bike rider? Yeah right. But play the man instead of the matter. The hating in here has to stop somewhere. Want me to take a swing at America and all the sporting frauds you can find from your home nation? I won't because it will be too easy.

I'll dumb it down for you and everyone with an IQ under 120. It has everything to do with Spanish Courts. Evidence, you know, the black book, Fuentes clinic and blood bags were all ruled under Spanish Law. CAS ruling borrowed from these! CAS is a court, making a ruling regarding an Italian Doping Ruling against a Spaniard based upon supposedly sealed Spanish evidence. The DNA, was from the Spanish Courts and Spanish Laboratory. It was legally sealed. It does not matter if it is an exact match. Valverde or anyone in that situation has no moral responsibility to come clean when he has legal avenues available. Race Radio, you may shun his behaviour and I may as well, but the avenue does exist for him to claim innocence. Legally he is. Realistically he is guilty as hell.

Now maybe where you come from, some arbitrary body like the UCI can just walk in and tell people what to do but national governing bodies trump random sporting bodies. In essence they have to give the ok for the UCI and CONI to use the evidence. Why? I could for the sake of it create my own little corporate body and profess I have power. Nothing happens without compromise, and CAS is not exclusive to this. Their authority has to be recognised and endorsed. CAS is basically and oversight committee. As I said, the blood bag is the smoking gun. The evidence was reportedly sealed. Serrano said so himself. What I have been wanting was somebody to clear that up so some form of chain of authority can be seen. Did CONI lie? From everything I've read for months now it would appear so. Until I hear conclusive evidence then I have every reason to suspect that CAS have overstepped their mark and will have a lot of trouble on their hands. Chains of authority must be followed. Listen to what Valverde's lawyers have said. They all but confirmed they believe the ruling is illegal.

Oh and don't try and tell me that CAS cannot be over turned. Are they the highest Court in Europe? That's what I thought. I'll be hearing silence on that point from everyone. European Courts cannot over rule CAS? Who gave authority to CAS? They can be over ruled, unless they are the highest court. Just like here in Australia, the ultimate ruling is by the high court for any respective nation. I asked a bunch of questions, wanted a solid answer and didn't get one. Yeah, fanboy and doping apologist. No, I simply want to understand.

You seem to confuse quantity of words with quality. The UCI is the governing body of the sport and they have the power to say who rides and who does not. Spanish courts have nothing to do with that.

CAS is the highest court in SPORTS Who gave this authority to CAS? the IOC and every international sports federation

Even Valverde's legal team is not stupid enough to pursue this in Spanish courts and be concern about how the evidence was obtained as they know it will have no case.

Give it a rest, you are just embarrassing yourself here.

 

[Mellow Velo]

This is the trouble with supporting top individual riders and their teams, rather than pro racing as a whole.
You stand a pretty fair chance, that at some point, you are going to feel the depression of your hero hitting the skids.

The forum fans protestations are as hollow as the rider himself.

I was disappointed but not surprised when Di Luca finally got busted, as he could always be relied upon to animate a race. The Giro will miss him, but hey, the race goes on and somebody else will catch the viewer's eye.
Not point in crying foul, wailing and gnashing teeth.

Time for fans take the philosophical approach, that used to be the rider vogue, back in the pre-Hamilton/Landis days.
Accept the probable ban, say nothing daft and get on with following the racing.

 

[elapid]

I am writing in support of Galic Ho and his sentiments. For the record, I think Valverde did dope (blood and EPO) and my beliefs regarding this case having nothing to do with whether Valverde is one of my favourite riders (which he is not BTW). I believe that there is much more to this case than just doping. The judicial system trumps the UCI and national sports federations, despite how high and mighty McQuaid may think of himself and the UCI. The Spanish judiciary ruled according to the laws as they applied at that time and current laws should not be applied retroactively. My concerns with OP and Valverde's case are:

- Spanish judicial decisions are either not being recognized or respected
- CONI's actions/methods in obtaining the evidence from OP
- Why just Valverde and not every other rider implicated in OP?
- If others want to involve the IOC and WADA in this mess, then why not Rafael Nadal and other Spanish tennis players, Real Madrid and Barcelona, etc?