Valverde case delayed AGAIN!

[Race Radio]

The doping apologist's have some rapidly shifting morals. It is hard to keep track of some times.

A judge asking a judge for evidence to prove his case is "Deceitful" but Landis' hiring a hacker to steal and modify documents is justified?

Why, why, why. Why weren't the originals made available as part of discovery? That way, he wouldn't have had to use the impoperly obtained documents.

 

[Race Radio]

Not so soon grasshopper.

Who owns the car?

According to the law it is community property. Mom and Dad both own the car so it is not stolen.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not so soon grasshopper.

Who owns the car?

It doesn't matter....

As Valverde would claim he doesn't know how to drive a car.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Can you explain what is deceitful about one country requesting the evidence from another country - and receiving that information.

According to this ElPais article CONI say the got the sample from Judge Serrano.

Why did Judge Serrano not intervene in the cases taken against Basso, Scarponi, Jaksche, Ullrich or Caruso?

There is there nothing deceitful about the request. However, Serrano denied the request, at least according to Serrano. I think this is going to be the next leg of this battle, which I think is far from over.

My best guess as to why he didn't intervene with respect to the others is becuase they are not Spanish citizens and they may or may no have had laws in their respective homelands regarding doping.

 

[RTMcFadden]

The doping apologist's have some rapidly shifting morals. It is hard to keep track of some times.

A judge asking a judge for evidence to prove his case is "Deceitful" but Landis' hiring a hacker to steal and modify documents is justified?

Honey, I don't have any problems with my moral compass and I don't apologies for anything. Now be a good little girl and run along.

 

[Hugh Januss]

According to the law it is community property. Mom and Dad both own the car so it is not stolen.

I don't think the point he was trying to make was if it constituted theft, but simply, is it deceitful to ask the second parent after the first has said no without that fact being know by the second. The answer is yes.

The real question is if CONI are doing this to fight doping and not just to get back at the Spanish with a rider of equal stature to Basso (you know, the guy who admitted to thinking about doping) why have they not gone after any more out of the 45 or so names that are left. About a half dozen riders have been punished in one way or another and Valverde deserves to join them, but if it stops there then it is extremely unfair to every one of those 6-7 riders.

Who was it who said "it's a mess"? He got it right.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It doesn't matter....

As Valverde would claim he doesn't know how to drive a car.

Brilliant.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There is there nothing deceitful about the request. However, Serrano denied the request, at least according to Serrano. I think this is going to be the next leg of this battle, which I think is far from over.

My best guess as to why he didn't intervene with respect to the others is becuase they are not Spanish citizens and they may or may no have had laws in their respective homelands regarding doping.

Your information appears to come from the legal team of Valverde. Operation Puerto was reopened again on 18th January 2009- CONI got the samples from Spain on 30th January 2009.

This is from the CAS judgement today:
The Italian judicial authorities had, indeed, obtained, on 30 January 2009, a sample from this bag which, according to an analysis performed by the Barcelona laboratory in 2006, contained EPO. The CONI Anti-Doping
Tribunal then stated that its anti-doping regulations had been breached on the grounds of the use of a banned substance as well as the attempted use of a prohibited method.
...
The CAS Panel considered that the CONI had jurisdiction to render the decision under appeal before the CAS and that the evidence analyzed by the judicial authorities and used in the CONI proceedings was not only admissible but also relevant and could reasonably lead to the outcome determined by the CONI Anti-Doping Tribunal. Finally, the CAS Panel ruled that the sanction
was proportionate to the violation of the CONI regulations by Alejandro Valverde.

 

[luckyboy]

Who was it who said "it's a mess"? He got it right.

There should be one external body to oversee all matters of doping in this sport. Until then (not that I think this is going to happen), there'll always be infighting between different federations and problems of this nature. Differences in laws in countries isn't/hasn't helped either. Also, an external body would (theoretically) prevent favouritism and proctectionism.

Basically, "it's a mess" = this case, but the whole sport. It feels hopeless.

 

[Race Radio]

There should be one external body to oversee all matters of doping in this sport. Until then (not that I think this is going to happen), there'll always be infighting between different federations and problems of this nature. Differences in laws in countries isn't/hasn't helped either. Also, an external body would (theoretically) prevent favouritism and proctectionism.

Basically, "it's a mess" = this case, but the whole sport. It feels hopeless.

There is one, it is called WADA. The Spanish ignored their requests

 

[Race Radio]

Honey, I don't have any problems with my moral compass and I don't apologies for anything. Now be a good little girl and run along.

Be a good little girl?

I understand you are embarrassed because people are pointing out your duplicity but really you can do better then that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't think the point he was trying to make was if it constituted theft, but simply, is it deceitful to ask the second parent after the first has said no without that fact being know by the second. The answer is yes.

The real question is if CONI are doing this to fight doping and not just to get back at the Spanish with a rider of equal stature to Basso (you know, the guy who admitted to thinking about doping) why have they not gone after any more out of the 45 or so names that are left. About a half dozen riders have been punished in one way or another and Valverde deserves to join them, but if it stops there then it is extremely unfair to every one of those 6-7 riders.

Who was it who said "it's a mess"? He got it right.

This is where people get confused with this case - for the likes of Basso, Scarponi, Valverde etc CONI had more information than just the blood bags.

In Valverdes case Ettore Torri said "We have documents referring to Valverde both for sums paid to [Doctor Eufemiano] Fuentes and for the substances [purchased]. However, these documents require interpretation. For now, though, we haven't examined the possibility of a precautionary suspension for Valverde. His lawyers have two weeks to prepare the defense case."

As for Basso - he had denied for almost a year, but when he was presented with the evidence at his hearing quickly admitted his 'mistake'. He also got the full 2 years even though representations were made by his legal team for a reduction.

 

[luckyboy]

There is one, it is called WADA. The Spanish ignored their requests

I meant in terms of the UCI controlling testing and how the sport's governing body shouldn't be carrying out the tests.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Honey, I don't have any problems with my moral compass and I don't apologies for anything. Now be a good little girl and run along.

Be a good little girl?

I understand you are embarrassed because people are pointing out your duplicity but really you can do better then that.

Seriously, the guy isn't worth the effort. He doesn't see anything wrong in cheating, but has a major issue with authority.

 

[Ripper]

The real question is if CONI are doing this to fight doping and not just to get back at the Spanish with a rider of equal stature to Basso (you know, the guy who admitted to thinking about doping) why have they not gone after any more out of the 45 or so names that are left. About a half dozen riders have been punished in one way or another and Valverde deserves to join them, but if it stops there then it is extremely unfair to every one of those 6-7 riders.

Well, it may not be fair for any of the named riders, but if you're actually specified, it rather begs for some form of action.

FWIW, OP looks like it is less and less likely to identify any other person, rider or otherwise (although who the F really knows right now). Valverde has been named, and everyone else who has formally been tagged has served their time ... it's his turn. We can complain about fairness, but life is not fair. Some other riders certainly got zinged and have already returned to racing for over a year now. So, one could argue it is not fair that CONI continued to push this case. But one could also say that it is not fair that Valverde has been able to continue racing and profiting when he should have already been banned.

And now we see he (or his team) is pushing the human rights defence. Good grief - if these various appeals and denials don't work for him, it is gonna look worse and worse.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Seriously, the guy isn't worth the effort. He doesn't see anything wrong in cheating, but has a major issue with authority.

Maybe he used to be a hippie?

 

[Race Radio]

I meant in terms of the UCI controlling testing and how the sport's governing body shouldn't be carrying out the tests.

Actually in most cases WADA does the majority of the testing. Sometimes in conjunction with the UCI, sometimes the UCI handles it.

WADA was formed to counter these exact issues, but national interests still remain

 

[pedaling squares]

I believe I was clear on this, but I'll restate. Yes. If you ask your father to borrow his car".

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.

 

[luckyboy]

Actually in most cases WADA does the majority of the testing. Sometimes in conjunction with the UCI, sometimes the UCI handles it.

WADA was formed to counter these exact issues, but national interests still remain

Oh, fair enough. But the UCI shouldn't really have anything to do with it. This isn't really on topic, so I'll stop now..

 

[Zerak-Tul]

Yes. If you ask your father to borrow his car and he says "No." And you then go ask your mother and she says "Yes." And you then take the car, you are guilty of both deceit and theft.

I believe I was clear on this, but I'll restate. Yes. If you ask your father to borrow his car".

Excellent straw man. Your comparison is fallacious because the Spanish judge Serrano (father) does not own any property (evidence). Neither does the other judge (mother).

However, both have the authority by the government to make judgments on access to the property (evidence). As long as it's permitted to get permission from one judge (over the wishes of another judge) then CONI did nothing deceptive. I believe it's a rather common thing in legal systems that you can appeal a decision (denial from Serrano) in the hopes that it will be overtuned, which is exactly what happened.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh, fair enough. But the UCI shouldn't really have anything to do with it. This isn't really on topic, so I'll stop now..

Actually- I think this is relevant and on topic. It is not the UCI who 'prosecutes' an athlete, it is the national federation.

I am pretty critical of the UCI- however in this case their hands have been pretty much tied - as the Spanish courts refused certain evidence to the UCI, WADA and indeed CAS

From 14th April 2008: Judge Antonio Serrano said that the CAS was "a private association and was therefore not subject to agreements allowing the sharing of legal evidence in the European Union." ..

The UCI asked the Spanish Federation (RFEC) to open a disciplinary case against Valverde, the RFEC refused, saying there was not enough evidence.
Both the UCI & WADA have taken a case to CAS to get the RFEC to open proceedings - this is due to be heard this week.

 

[python]

this thread is all over the place.

my focus is validity of evidence against valverde not what if, why not others, is it fair....etc etc

but i have one 'why' question im still struggling with: why did coni go after valverde specifically ?

because they could ?
because that was their strongest evidence based case ?
because of some nationalistic resentment ?
because they had abstract noble goals ?

why ?

 

[Hugh Januss]

this thread is all over the place.

my focus is validity of evidence against valverde not what if, why not others, is it fair....etc etc

but i have one 'why' question im still struggling with: why did coni go after valverde specifically ?

because they could ?
because that was their strongest evidence based case ?
because of some nationalistic resentment ?
because they had abstract noble goals ?

why ?

Yes
Yes
Yes
Perhaps

 

[luckyboy]

I'd say the first two, and maybe a bit of the third (could all be motivated by the third, but I wouldn't want to think that that is the reason they want to catch people).

Actually- I think this is relevant and on topic. It is not the UCI who 'prosecutes' an athlete, it is the national federation.

Yeah, I was talking more generally than with regards to this specific case though. Everything needs to simplified and streamlined (re: anti-doping).

 

[Ripper]

this thread is all over the place.

my focus is validity of evidence against valverde not what if, why not others, is it fair....etc etc

but i have one 'why' question im still struggling with: why did coni go after valverde specifically ?

because they could ? No doubt

because that was their strongest evidence based case ? Well it was a strong case. I am not sure about strongest.

because of some nationalistic resentment ? I am not so sure about this. The CONI is very aggressive, just look at how they deal with Italian riders, and they had evidence against Valverde. Nationalistic matters may have added fuel to the fire, but there was likely more than sufficient evidence to proceed. Perhaps I am not enough of a conspiracy theorist!

because they had abstract noble goals ? Welllllll ... you will find that people like Torri are pretty passionate about these matters.

why ?

A wee link from the CONI =7588&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=e42eb6a9a7]here