• 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 case delayed AGAIN!

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
ChrisE said:
Good, if that is the case. National organizations outside of one's country shouldn't be allowed to dictate whether they can ride or not anywhere in the world IMO. Talk about a slippery slope.

That would be like me saying you should be banned from this forum (hypothetically of course). I wouldn't want that kind of power!
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
Thanks for the info Susan.

How is the UCI going to pursue an investigation? Are they going to ask CONI for a sample of some of Valverde's blood? This seems unlikely. Now with Operacion Puerto officially closed this looks like Valverde is going to ride the next Tour de France

Considering it's the UCI and WADA that asked the CAS for a global suspension and that it's looking extremely likely that the CAS decision on a global suspension is going to be "Let the UCI and WADA decide", I'd say Valv is screwed.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
frenchfry said:
That would be like me saying you should be banned from this forum (hypothetically of course). I wouldn't want that kind of power!

FrenchFry does not equal UCI in forum hierarchy so your argument is not valid. I am proud to say I have been banned from 2 forums because I was sacrastically making the denizens think too hard. That would suck if my insults to others in those forums translated into not being able to debate subjects with the fine minds in here. :cool:
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
issoisso said:
Considering it's the UCI and WADA that asked the CAS for a global suspension and that it's looking extremely likely that the CAS decision on a global suspension is going to be "Let the UCI and WADA decide", I'd say Valv is screwed.

Valverde appealed his suspension for racing in Italy, right? Why does the UCI have to ask CAS anything on making the ban worldwide? It would seem they could just do it and then Valverde would need to appeal that to the CAS. Am I missing something here?
 
issoisso said:
Considering it's the UCI and WADA that asked the CAS for a global suspension and that it's looking extremely likely that the CAS decision on a global suspension is going to be "Let the UCI and WADA decide", I'd say Valv is screwed.
Maybe we are seeing something different, but how can they open a process when the Operacion Puerto is closed and they don't have access to any more information or blood?
 
My belief on the outcome of this nonsense is that UCI/WADA will ask Valverde for some kind of compensation fee to avoid further pursuit on the case & the CONI ban will continue to its full compliance next year.
Shame on UCI & the Spanish cycling federation!!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
Valverde appealed his suspension for racing in Italy, right? Why does the UCI have to ask CAS anything on making the ban worldwide? It would seem they could just do it and then Valverde would need to appeal that to the CAS. Am I missing something here?

Kindof sortof.....

You are right that CONI should not be able to uphold a worldwide ban for a rider who does not ride in their jurisdiction.

It is not the UCI, WADA, CONI or even CAS who bring disciplinary procedures against riders - it is their national federations, in this case the RFEC.

It is the second case before CAS regarding Valverde that is the one that is more troublesome for Valverde. The RFEC have said they do not have enough evidence against Valverde - however both the UCI and WADA claim the RFEC does - which is why they took the RFEC to CAS.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Kindof sortof.....

You are right that CONI should not be able to uphold a worldwide ban for a rider who does not ride in their jurisdiction.

It is not the UCI, WADA, CONI or even CAS who bring disciplinary procedures against riders - it is their national federations, in this case the RFEC.

It is the second case before CAS regarding Valverde that is the one that is more troublesome for Valverde. The RFEC have said they do not have enough evidence against Valverde - however both the UCI and WADA claim the RFEC does - which is why they took the RFEC to CAS.

Thanks. I also reread the CN article....my recollection of the facts of this case are not the best.

Is CONI trying to uphold a worldwide ban, or is the UCI/WADA? The article says the latter. Admittedly neither makes any sense because only a rider's federation can suspend, which I knew and agree with per my earlier post. I obviously forgot this in my other post about the UCI banning Valverde...

I'm not sure I understand the merits of the second case; I wasn't aware of this case.. If RFEC says they don't have enough proof, how can UCI/WADA say they do? Is UCI/WADA claiming that RFEC is willfully lieing about the evidence they possess or are their interpretations of the evidence they have being questioned? Or, does UCI/WADA claim the "evidence" is the CONI suspension, which in a roundabout way circumvents a rider's national fed from disciplining?
 
This just in from la Gazzetta dello Sport: 14-1-10

Valverde denys, Manzano transforms him into a liar.
Alejandro. "I never had a dog named Piti"
Jesus: "False. And he also gave blood to Fuentes."


The second day at TAS in Switzerland yesterday for Alejandro Valverde's appeal against a 2 year disqualification in Italy...Ten hours to hear ten testimonies and Valverde (from Australia by telephone). Valverde spoke first for two hours and he denied everything. He only knew Fuente's because he was the brother of the team medic, he never met Merino Batres (the other medic involved) and Doctor Walter Viru (recently involved in a spanish civil investigation and baned for 10 years), he never owned a dog named Piti (in Fuente's records Valverde would be Valv-Piti)

After Valverde it was Manzano's turn, who refuted, one by one, each of Valverde's claims. He retold what he said to CONI about the horrors of taking blood in private clinics, of blood sacks ("at least two 1/2 liter bags for each rider"), of EPO. Always refering to Fuentes, but also Merino Batres who extracted the blood, but also Viru. In short, all were involved. And Valverde? Each rider entered into the closet to give his blood, "Valverde was also there." And plasma? "For Fuentes it was too expensive and was only for a few."

In regards to Valverde's Piti denyal, two refuted this claim. Manzano: "He spoke for hours on the phone about this dog to his wife." And a journalist from AS, Quique Iglesias, in his article "A Day with Valverde" which began: "We arrived and were greeted by Piti his dog..." It seems as if the only one who has forgotten is Valverde....
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Visit site
rhubroma said:
This just in from la Gazzetta dello Sport: 14-1-10

Valverde denys, Manzano transforms him into a liar.
Alejandro. "I never had a dog named Piti"
Jesus: "False. And he also gave blood to Fuentes."


The second day at TAS in Switzerland yesterday for Alejandro Valverde's appeal against a 2 year disqualification in Italy...Ten hours to hear ten testimonies and Valverde (from Australia by telephone). Valverde spoke first for two hours and he denied everything. He only knew Fuente's because he was the brother of the team medic, he never met Merino Batres (the other medic involved) and Doctor Walter Viru (recently involved in a spanish civil investigation and baned for 10 years), he never owned a dog named Piti (in Fuente's records Valverde would be Valv-Piti)

After Valverde it was Manzano's turn, who refuted, one by one, each of Valverde's claims. He retold what he said to CONI about the horrors of taking blood in private clinics, of blood sacks ("at least two 1/2 liter bags for each rider"), of EPO. Always refering to Fuentes, but also Merino Batres who extracted the blood, but also Viru. In short, all were involved. And Valverde? Each rider entered into the closet to give his blood, "Valverde was also there." And plasma? "For Fuentes it was too expensive and was only for a few."

In regards to Valverde's Piti denyal, two refuted this claim. Manzano: "He spoke for hours on the phone about this dog to his wife." And a journalist from AS, Quique Iglesias, in his article "A Day with Valverde" which began: "We arrived and were greeted by Piti his dog..." It seems as if the only one who has forgotten is Valverde....

Just like Basso's dog was not named Brillio. Well done in translating and reposting bits of an article on Valverde and the interview with Ricco.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Visit site
Now Valverde wants his DNA retested to prove his innocence....but he'll only do it if it's done in spain. You can see where this is going.
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Visit site
issoisso said:
Now Valverde wants his DNA retested to prove his innocence....but he'll only do it if it's done in spain. You can see where this is going.

Keep dragging it out for another 17 months and his ban will be over. A canny person is our Alejando.
 
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.
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Visit site
I have always been a fan of Valverde's racing style, but it was interesting come 2007 and he started to slow down quite a bit. Maybe he should be trying to win at the TDU after all.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Visit site
craig1985 said:
Keep dragging it out for another 17 months and his ban will be over. A canny person is our Alejando.

Not at all. The ban in Italy is in force and will last 2 years from the moment it started. The worldwide ban will start counting from the moment it's applied
 
Apr 12, 2009
1,087
2
0
Visit site
Well that seems fair to me, it looks like Valverde is going with the oj defense, If the blood doesn't fit you must acquit and it's an independent lab so it should be okay.
 
No, Valverde changed his DNA since. Or we have a stand-in Valverde now. Like accounts of Paul McCartney having been been replaced by a more talented look-alike in the 60's...

No need to take new DNA from him, it has been taken of several occasions in the past I'm sure. If prior samples are good enough for CONI, it should be good enough for UCI.