Valverde case delayed AGAIN!

[Ripper]

I have been getting 'lawyered' here for the last 2 days - yet all those have missed one key component of justice.
Where has it been said that CONI's actions were illegal? I have found one report where the Spanish Minister for Sport has misgivings as Judge Serrano was on holidays when CONI made there application.

Either CONIs actions were legal or illegal. Operation Puerto was opened again on 18th January 2009, within days CONI had sent in a formal request for access to "bag no.18" as there was considerable evidence to suggest this belonged to Valverde. The Spanish authorities agreed - if CONIs actions were illegal then why did Valverde not get his legal team to stop this?

Yes ... CONI and by default CAS have not exceeded their remit. In terms of the way the sport is policed, they have followed procedure and stand upon solid legal ground. Spanish law is no longer part of the equation.

+100 - you have both summed this up better than I could.

The evidence has been obtained, and not via illegal means but by an appropriate channel. That the judge was not around at the time is not an issue for either the CONI or the CAS. It is not like these agencies sent in a secret agent to obtain the evidence! Had there been instructions to not hand over the evidence, the CONI would never have received it.

The rulings on the evidence are based on sporting code and rules that the atheletes sign and were in force at the time, not criminal law.

Had Valverde copped to it at the time, he would have faced some form of ban, likely nominal had he 'played ball'. Now the noose appears to be tightening.

BTW - when there are complaints that a panel is biased, as Valverde's lawyers have recently announced in this case, they are usually tabled pro-actively unless it is actually a smoke and mirrors game and actually because the decision is not the one hoped for by the accused.

I will be interested to see how this all ends up.

PS - RR and Python, you 2 appear to be in agreement and arguing over semantics a bit ... relax!

 

[Race Radio]

and you still are missing the point despite dr m post above. and i did not see anyone discussing here afld or other sporting federations. you are easy to use words like irrelevant so im applying it to you - afld is irrelevant to the point dr. m was entertaining. my comment was to his point - search for illegality in conis actions.

i repeat. because the italian anti-doping police, not coni, an antidoping agency with multiple hats, made an inquiry and obtained the evidence, the question of illegality of the italian actions acquires a different light that many missed.

again, read the cas ruling. it is specifically referring to the italian police, not coni or of one of its hats. in fact if it was coni that obtained the key evidence directly, it would be a fair target of legal attacks. because it is the judiciaries of the two countries make legal agreements, not an anti-doping agency of one country and and some judge in another country.

There are two notices that have been sent out, the press release in English and the ruling in French. The press release refers to "judicial authorities", not Police. The CAS decision (in French) gives a far more detailed explination of what CONI's structure is it was CONI that made the request.

L’Ufficio di Procura Antidoping du CONI (l’ « UPA-CONI ») est l’organisme chargé d’enquêter sur les violations des normes antidopage italiennes (les « NSA »), adoptées par le CONI conformément au Code Mondial Antidopage (le « CMA») de l’Agence Mondiale Antidopage (l’ « AMA »). Le Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping (le « TNA ») est l’instance suprême du CONI en matière de dopage.

This says that UPA-CONI is the NAS organization set up to police the WADA code in Italy. CONI is part of the government. It was UPA-CONI that made the request through normal judicial channels. They can do this as they are part of the Italian government.

I mention AFLD because they too are part of the federal government. This is not the case with other local WADA signators, USADA for example is a non- Governmental agency and hence would not have the ability to request the sample though the normal legal channels.

The complete CAS report goes into detail, confirmed by Torri in interviews, that UPA-CONI worked closely with the Guardia Civil. Because of CONI's unique position as a government agency they were over time able to secure much more information about Valverde then just the DNA sample. Phone records, Billing info, doping schedules. This coupled with Manzano's direct testimony was enough to sink Valverde in my opinion.

The actual group that went to Barcelona to retrieve the sample was the Guardia di Finanza. The Italian Financial Guard. In addition to Financial crime they also police Narcotics. The complete CAS report goes into detail about how CONI followed the rules of its mandate and used the correct methods to obtain evidence.

 

[Bike Rider]

if he hadn't been a Fuentes lab rat his career would have been always that "of a super domestique for the in form guy".

That's an assertion that we cannot know.

I just think it's sad for the sport when a top rider is taken out at their peak. The authorities should have done something years ago - banning him now doesn't seem right to me.

 

[fatandfast]

The rules must be the same in both cases. Otherwise, there is no point in sport governing bodies engaging with justice and police in their anti-doping farce. As I said before they are getting a free ride on the police and justice resources without abiding by the law, in this case the validity of the evidences.

This is the only thing that worries me in this mess: sport governing bodies (which are private institutions that have been granted exclusive rights by governments) are drawing public resources and not abiding by the public law.

Simply not the case. Most places don't give a f-ck about bike racing. It's the inverse they hope that a governing body can sustain itself before an Olympic or professional event. The amount of money spent on cycling in North America could fit in the ashtray of an owners car of an NBA,NFL team. Man U spends more on foot soap than most cycling team budgets. The UCI has brought this on by having so many little nooks and cranny associations that can sub-sanction everything that who is in charge is never known. Pro bike racing should be a brand just like all other major sports. If there was some kind of anti-team that the African gov or football league said would be forbidden from competing you would see how fast the National Federation would fold. The UCI should have lots more control over the talent, how it's tested and later tried in court.Before the WWW and the ability to share info easily the US cycling fed could have imploded and the only people that would have known would be the wives,husbands, children and coworkers of the@45,000 registered racers. The WWW is also exposing that for the most part pro cycling is run by some chubby Irish guy with no training or education for any of it. Other than his early cheating offenses.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's an assertion that we cannot know.

I just think it's sad for the sport when a top rider is taken out at their peak. The authorities should have done something years ago - banning him now doesn't seem right to me.

I think it is sad for the sport when any rider dopes.

It was Valverde - not the authorities - who has drawn this mess out.

He could have actually applied to CAS last year before the Tour, and received a 'fastrack' case so he could ride in the Tour in 2009.

"The CAS could have set up an expedited procedure, with the agreement of the parties, in order to render a decision prior to 4 July 2009", Matthieu Reeb CAS.

 

[cartman]

I agree that when CONI had allready recieved the evidence they should act on it. However as icefire has allready stated the evidence shouldn't have been handed over according to the european agreement for handing over evidence one justice judiciary system to another. And as judge Serrano revoked the permission to hand over the evidence is it still legally usable? This is not my main point, just something that confuses me. So it goes to CAS, and as it's located in Switzerland CAS' decision can be appealed to the federal supreme court of Switzerland. How will they react to the way the evidence was gathered? They are not a part of the EU.

My main point is this though: In the past the EU have forced FIFA regulations to not apply in Europe, through the common european laws on shared labour market. Could Valverde pursue this avenue as he would lose his livelihood if given a two year ban? Seeing as atleast in the EU the evidence against him shouldn't have been provided leaving no case against him. I was thinking this scenario: The UCI impose a 2 year ban on Valverde, could they uphold this ban on races in the EU? FIFA didn't manage to uphold it's restrictions in the EU.

I am not overly learned in the subject of law, so I'd appreciate if someone came up with a good answer to those questions.

 

[blackcat]

I agree that when CONI had allready recieved the evidence they should act on it. However as icefire has allready stated the evidence shouldn't have been handed over according to the european agreement for handing over evidence one justice judiciary system to another. And as judge Serrano revoked the permission to hand over the evidence is it still legally usable? This is not my main point, just something that confuses me. So it goes to CAS, and as it's located in Switzerland CAS' decision can be appealed to the federal supreme court of Switzerland. How will they react to the way the evidence was gathered? They are not a part of the EU.

My main point is this though: In the past the EU have forced FIFA regulations to not apply in Europe, through the common european laws on shared labour market. Could Valverde pursue this avenue as he would lose his livelihood if given a two year ban? Seeing as atleast in the EU the evidence against him shouldn't have been provided leaving no case against him. I was thinking this scenario: The UCI impose a 2 year ban on Valverde, could they uphold this ban on races in the EU? FIFA didn't manage to uphold it's restrictions in the EU.

I am not overly learned in the subject of law, so I'd appreciate if someone came up with a good answer to those questions.

UCI can still rule for non-analytic positive in any manner.

 

[python]

There are two notices that have been sent out, the press release in English and the ruling in French. The press release refers to "judicial authorities", not Police. The CAS decision (in French) gives a far more detailed explination of what CONI's structure is it was CONI that made the request.
This says that UPA-CONI is the NAS organization set up to police the WADA code in Italy. CONI is part of the government. It was UPA-CONI that made the request through normal judicial channels. They can do this as they are part of the Italian government.

I mention AFLD because they too are part of the federal government. This is not the case with other local WADA signators, USADA for example is a non- Governmental agency and hence would not have the ability to request the sample though the normal legal channels.

The complete CAS report goes into detail, confirmed by Torri in interviews, that UPA-CONI worked closely with the Guardia Civil. Because of CONI's unique position as a government agency they were over time able to secure much more information about Valverde then just the DNA sample. Phone records, Billing info, doping schedules. This coupled with Manzano's direct testimony was enough to sink Valverde in my opinion.

The actual group that went to Barcelona to retrieve the sample was the Guardia di Finanza. The Italian Financial Guard. In addition to Financial crime they also police Narcotics. The complete CAS report goes into detail about how CONI followed the rules of its mandate and used the correct methods to obtain evidence.

i am going to characterize this overall thorough post by your own words 'not exactly'.

just going by the info you supplied in the post:

UPA-CONI is the NAS organization

thats right. it is part of the anti-drug wider and more powerful police organization and not the other way around as you asserted.

There are two notices that have been sent out, the press release in English and the ruling in French

.did you notice that all my posts in this thread always referred to the original cas ruling (in french) and never to the detail-poor summary (in english) ?

Because of CONI's unique position as a government agency

there is nothing unique there. you are misinformed. every anti-doping arm (in the wada sense) is a government agency or largely subsidized by a government - in every country where a separate anti-doping agency exists. zero uniqueness here.

I mention AFLD because they too are part of the federal government. This is not the case with other local WADA signators, USADA for example is a non- Governmental agency

afld is irrelevant. usada is irrelevant. all/most ad nadas are government agencies or subsidized by by the fed. moot point.

lastly, i may know about various nadas and labs more than you're willing to give me credit for.

 

[Race Radio]

there is nothing unique there. you are misinformed. every anti-doping arm in, the wada sense, is a government agency or largely subsidized by a government - in every country where a separate anti-doping agency exists. zero uniqueness here.

afld is irrelevant. usada is irrelevant. all/most ad nadas are government agencies or subsidized by by the fed. moot point.

lastly, i may know about various nadas and labs more than you're willing to give me credit for.

I am sure you know plenty more then I do about it but the fact is USADA is a non-governmental agency. Some of it's funding comes in the form of a grant but it is not a government agency. AFLD and UPA-CONI are unique in the fact they are government agencies and hence have a wider scope of power and influence. In fact the AFLD can bring criminal cases in France

To be clear, it is my assertion that CONI did not overstep their mandate or behave underhandedly. CAS says that CONI requested the samples via the Rome Prosecutor they say this many times. It is also my assertion that if another agency, like USADA, that is not part of the judicial system made the same request it would have been turned down.

In reading the CAS decision it is also clear that Valverde does not have a leg to stand on.

 

[fatandfast]

As python points out (harshly) lots of these guys are caught up in the web of drugs that are way wider than just cycling. Most of the sporting agencies that are mentioned do not have any police or policing capacity. You show up, pee, get caught and come back in 2 years with hopefully better judgment and/or luck. There are large lab companies in every modern country that could test for pot,coke,smack when applying for a job as a school teacher,pilot,train conductor ect. The reason that this is all so complicated is you have @900 athletes from all over the world that are not on a regular schedule of testing. The U23 WC race is a great example, There were not that many athletes that needed to be tested but the UCI could have compelled them to be at the race location 3 days prior and to be tested a few times before and everybody after just to see what % of the racers are using. Every rider at worlds should be tested before and after the race regardless of placing,including DNF,DNS and pullouts If some squad says rider x will race and is removed for whatever reason he should be tested on the date he withdrew.The price per test could be a couple of euros for lots of tests if the volume was right. Being associated with a drug dealer who as part of his wares also sells CERA is just bad luck. If you tell a pro he needs to be tested 2 days before and after every event or after a sudden withdraw if he starts belly aching he is guilty. When a guy is getting top 10's and is suddenly removed from a race like San Remo I would have a cup of pee from everybody on the whole team

 

[python]

I am sure you know plenty more then I do about it but the fact is USADA is a non-governmental agency. Some of it's funding comes in the form of a grant but it is not a government agency. AFLD and UPA-CONI are unique in the fact they are government agencies and hence have a wider scope of power and influence. In fact the AFLD can bring criminal cases in France

To be clear, it is my assertion that CONI did not overstep their mandate or behave underhandedly. CAS says that CONI requested the samples via the Rome Prosecutor they say this many times. It is also my assertion that if another agency, like USADA, that is not part of the judicial system made the same request it would have been turned down.

In reading the CAS decision it is also clear that Valverde does not have a leg to stand on.

like many americans you are stuck on the uniqueness of your countries experiences. i know you are 'traveled'. i know your heart is in the right place. i agree with most of your post in most topics except when you are getting on the soap box. usada is irrelevant. afld is irrelevant.

those who questioned legality of the coni actions referred to 'the law' implying the italians where breaking some universal law. i provided the background to the issue: the italians (coni in this case), for whatever reason acted in accordance with their understanding of the bilateral and the governing EU laws. they have lawyers too !!!!

constant references to coni as the chief participant and therefore a culprit (in some minds) of the "illegal" actions tends to obscure the fact: the italians acted` lawfully. it is an allegation they acted illegally and it needs some solid proof.

you rr referring to coni in stead of the police (that in fact was the case) helps to confuse the search for the answer.

finally, we know for a fact valverde used legal loopholes to extend his racing season. this does not make his actions illegal. by the same token, coni/the italian judicial authorities used their legal options to obtain the evidence they needed. it does not make it cheating or illegal. it was creative and focused. only a competent legal analysis by the EU experts (and not a bunch of the forum members) would qualify as anything sound. in my book.

 

[hektoren]

I agree that when CONI had allready recieved the evidence they should act on it. However as icefire has allready stated the evidence shouldn't have been handed over according to the european agreement for handing over evidence one justice judiciary system to another. And as judge Serrano revoked the permission to hand over the evidence is it still legally usable? This is not my main point, just something that confuses me. So it goes to CAS, and as it's located in Switzerland CAS' decision can be appealed to the federal supreme court of Switzerland. How will they react to the way the evidence was gathered? They are not a part of the EU.

My main point is this though: In the past the EU have forced FIFA regulations to not apply in Europe, through the common european laws on shared labour market. Could Valverde pursue this avenue as he would lose his livelihood if given a two year ban? Seeing as atleast in the EU the evidence against him shouldn't have been provided leaving no case against him. I was thinking this scenario: The UCI impose a 2 year ban on Valverde, could they uphold this ban on races in the EU? FIFA didn't manage to uphold it's restrictions in the EU.

I am not overly learned in the subject of law, so I'd appreciate if someone came up with a good answer to those questions.

Don't forget that taking the case to CAS is a voluntary process. Valverde's legal team decided to take the case to CAS, hoping to overturn CONI's ban. By doing this they had to sign an agreement beforehand , saying that "The dispute will be submitted exclusively to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland, and settled definitively in accordance with the Code of sports-related arbitration." They designated one arbitrator, CONI another, and these two appointed the President of the three-man panel hearing the case.

The CAS' verdict was unanimous. The verdict says clearly that the mere fact that there was a bag of blood from Valverde in Fuentes' office, (and Valverde hasn't made any claim that drawing his blood formed any part of ordinary medical treatment), then, irrespective of any dynEPO present or not, the bag in itself constitutes a clear violation of the rules of the game.

Reading the verdict through, it is very evident that Valverde's lawyers will leave no stone unturned, looking for any and every legal loophole they might find. The verdict shows us for example how Valverde makes the claim that CONI had no right to examine the DNA-composition of the blood sample drawn from him in Italy in '08; according to him they could only look for the presence of illegal substances. Yet Valverde, by signing on the CONI form at the time of the blood-sample, in reality agreed that CONI could do whatever CONI deemed appropriate with it, which they duly did.

My prediction?
Valverde will be pulled, kicking and screaming, to the scaffold. But he'll fall. High time!

 

[fatandfast]

hektoren, while agree with 100% of your facts. I completely disagree with the idea that cases involving pro cycling offenses be pleaded out in whatever sport court fits the offender or federation. People skating or jumping horses who have offended their sports,fans and federations deserve a trial and a judgment by a sport court. The UCI is insane for letting the discipline of it's athletes go any further than a revue board at the UCI.

 

[DAOTEC]

Latest =>

'Valverde has been put on Non-Active by Caisse d"Epargne'

http://www.diariodenavarra.es/20100325/deportes/valverde-duda-hasta-final-g-p-indurain.html?not=2010032502545810&idnot=2010032502545810&dia=20100325&seccion=deportes&seccion2=masDeportes&chnl=20

 

[Digger]

Certain people on here are claiming that the peleton is cleaning up. Why then are the riders not openly expressing their dissatisfaction with Piti still racing and winning? Surely if you were clean, you saw a guy racing and winning, taking your money and glory, you knew he cheated and should be banned, you'd be remonstrating like mad? This lack of anything by his fellow pros speaks volumes about their mentality towards doping. A cheater who wins gets a free pass. A cheater who is caught and admits, gets ostracised. And this is universal - all countries.