Just a follow up from today's Gazzetta dello Sport: (15-1-10)
Valverde: CONI wins
"It's right to stop him for two years"
After three days TAS denys the Spaniard's recourse: now it's up to the UCI to extand the ban worldwide.
Maurizio Galdi
TAS seems oriented to affirm that CONI acted correctly...The rebuking of Valverde's deposition by Jesus Manzano and the Spanish journalist Quique Iglesias led TAS to evaluate the case based upon Italian law and was a dramatic determining factor in inducing the College of Arbitration (under Belgian president Subiotto, German arbitrator Hass and the Italian Ruggero Stincardini) to repel Valverde's appeal...Valverde was illadvised in this battle, which the experts judged a loosing one from the start. Article 58 of TAS' guiding rules allows for the consideration of the laws of the particular nation in which the offense was commitied. The Spaniard's lawyers (the Italian Federico Cecconi and two experts of Spanish law) attempted to contest this very point. They faught to explain how Italy had committed "trickery" in obtaining the blood sacks and thus violated the athlete's privacy.
Yesterday all these objections were overturned by CONI's lawyers, Bartolucci and Filogamo. When the Spanish Civil Gaurd arrested doctor Eufemiano Fuentes, they found with him a pamphlet of the Hotel Silken with hand written annotations of various athletes, among which was precisely indicated Valverde's name (as well as those of other cyclists: but his was not even in code). In addition, the presumed irregularity in the various movements of the blood sacks were determined to be without any foundation in terms of determining whether or not a doping crime was committed. Whereas the presence of Valverde's blood in the sacks in conection with the case, is in itself proof of doping - just as it is also clarified by the antidoping codex of WADA.
I would conclude, in response to Alpe's question above, that the reason why Valverde should be singled out is simple: because CONI pursued and got the evidince that incriminates him. It was up to TAS to determine the legality of how CONI obtained the evidence and whether or not a single nation could punish a foreign rider within its own juristiction for an offence the proof of which had been established on home soil; and they ruled in favor of Italy.
Sure it would have been better if the various Basso's, Scarponi's and, now, Valverde's didn't have to take the fall for the many who continue to ride while having commited the same crime without punishment. However it is just as fair in saying that as soon as one has been implicated in this case, then that opens the door for others being justly so condemned too if involved in the same offense. I do not agree with those who suggest that either they all get punished or nobody should. Unfortunately the powers that be behind the scene (in Spain as elsewhere), make the fight against doping much less linear than that. So we have to accept that it will be a process of finding success in the step-by-step battles along the way toward final victory in the this war (if final victory is even possible). However to renounce in punishing Valverde is to renounce in this war and no matter how sceptical I am in the chance of winning it, I do not desire for the struggle to be stopped. And if CONI lost (looses) this battle and Valverde had won (wins), then the struggle against doping, as far as I'm concerned, will have come to a dramatic hault. This is what is at stake. And we musn't allow our personal sentiments for a particular rider to cloud our judgment in this regard. I, for example, was disappointed for Basso when he got busted, however I recognize the justice that had been served. The same holds true for Valverde if banned universally, just as it would for anyone else proven to have been directly linked to the case. And just because some don't get punished, should not exclude the possibilty that others should be. Otherwise they effectively gain impunity and there is no justice in that, whereas in punishing them for their prooven offences at least some justice is served.