Valverde case delayed AGAIN!

[RTMcFadden]

Isn't the Vuelta Unipublic, not UCI? Anyway, since there is no evidence to say he won the Vuelta doped, and since the blood bags in question date from 2004, it would be a pretty unbelievable punishment to remove five years' worth of results that, in the eyes of the law at least, were cleanly won.

I'm aware that Unipiblic owns the Vuelta, but the UCI sanctions it a Pro Tour event.

You raise another good question. Since this infraction took place in 2004, what punishment would be appropriate?

A two year ban would be to 2006, but he rode during that time. A two year ban from this point forward woud allow him to keep "potetnially ill-gotten gains" of prior years. So, what do you do?

Maybe impose a two year ban from this point forward and void any result between 2004 and 2006?

 

[Race Radio]

I'm aware that Unipiblic owns the Vuelta, but the UCI sanctions it a Pro Tour event.

You raise another good question. Since this infraction took place in 2004, what punishment would be appropriate?

A two year ban would be to 2006, but he rode during that time. A two year ban from this point forward woud allow him to keep "potetnially ill-gotten gains" of prior years. So, what do you do?

Maybe impose a two year ban from this point forward and void any result between 2004 and 2006?

The Ban starts from when he stops racing.

 

[RTMcFadden]

The Ban starts from when he stops racing.

What if he doesn't stop racing until age 60?

 

[Ferminal]

What if he doesn't stop racing until age 60?

I'm guessing in that case he would be 62 or dead before he starts again.

 

[ScottinPhilly]

This is my question: when does somebody stop Valverde from racing? As long as he continues to appeal, which is his right, and delay this process, he continues to race during the prime of his career and rack up results. Shouldn't he at least be provisionally suspended until this thing comes to a resolution. That would at least force this thing to a resolution one way or the other, I would hope.

In my opinion what Valverde is doing is essentially trading 2 years from the end of his career in exchange for last year and this where he goes for broke.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm aware that Unipiblic owns the Vuelta, but the UCI sanctions it a Pro Tour event.

You raise another good question. Since this infraction took place in 2004, what punishment would be appropriate?

A two year ban would be to 2006, but he rode during that time. A two year ban from this point forward woud allow him to keep "potetnially ill-gotten gains" of prior years. So, what do you do?

Maybe impose a two year ban from this point forward and void any result between 2004 and 2006?

Some good questions - there are certainly problems in imposing a just and fair sanction.

However there is precedent in the case of Thomas Dekker - his 2007 sample was retested and his A sample was positive in July 2009, his B confirmed in September. His 2 year ban began from his initial suspension, ie July 1st 2009.

One would assume that if the RFEC open proceeding against Valverde he will be suspended from competition, so any ban would start from this date.
He may get a reduced suspension because of the CONI ban in Italy.

As for results- it is unlikely that they will pursue striping of results or titles, but he will probably be hit with a large fine.

 

[ChrisE]

This is all pretty confusing, still.

If the Spanish courts ruled the OP evidence could not be used in sanctioning riders or other athlete's, then how is it possible that the Spanish fed could investigate Valverde's involvement and sanction him?

How did CONI and other federations get the OP blood data in lieu of the Spanish court directive?

 

[RTMcFadden]

As for results- it is unlikely that they will pursue striping of results or titles, but he will probably be hit with a large fine.

Well, they may fine him, but I doubt they'll ever see a penny of it. He lives in Spain and the company he works for is registered in Spain. So, in order for the UCI to after him, they have to submit to the jurisdiction of the Spanish courts. Of course the Spanish courts have already ruled on the issues surrounding this case, so the judgement would be summary and against the UCI.

At this point, the only thing to say is "Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten us into Ollie."

 

[RTMcFadden]

This is all pretty confusing, still.

If the Spanish courts ruled the OP evidence could not be used in sanctioning riders or other athlete's, then how is it possible that the Spanish fed could investigate Valverde's involvement and sanction him?

How did CONI and other federations get the OP blood data in lieu of the Spanish court directive?

Through deceit.

 

[Jan the Man]

This case is a total shambles, from beginning to end.

No party comes out of it smelling of roses.

 

[elapid]

If the Spanish courts ruled the OP evidence could not be used in sanctioning riders or other athlete's, then how is it possible that the Spanish fed could investigate Valverde's involvement and sanction him?

Good question. Legally, it is not possible. The current laws cannot be applied retrospectively. The RFEC and, despite how much McQuaid may want to protest, UCI are not above the judiciary systems of any country.

How did CONI and other federations get the OP blood data in lieu of the Spanish court directive?

CONI were sneaky. They appealed to the Spanish courts (and won) when the original judge (Serrano) was on vacation. I believe this has since been overturned and the original ruling reinforced.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Possible Irony

If two years is right and Valverde gets a two year ban round the world - then he will already have done the two years in Italy .... so may be he could participate only in Italian events!

 

[Mellow Velo]

Through deceit.

Is it deceitful to ask for access to evidence, when the judge who's clearly protecting the guilty,(corrupt) takes a holiday?

Now, we have a situation where results may, or may not be invalidated. The fact that we are years down the line, is the fault of the Spanish dragging their judicial feet, not to say, stamping them, when pressurised to act.

Once the UCI enable a worldwide ban, he's gone. He can continue to appeal, but from the sidelines.
A case of the wheels of justice turning and all that.

 

[python]

valverde is screwed.

the second case (WADA/UCI against RFEC) thought not over is a done deal and valverde will likely get a world wide ban.

todays ruling by cas contains extensive analysis of technical evidence (starting on page 25).

he was accused by coni not only of attempting to use a banned method but actually of using epo and coni considered it proven. from what i get cas panel delved into the technicalities of all tests including the dna matching and did not question its validity.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Is it deceitful to ask for access to evidence, when the judge who's clearly protecting the guilty,(corrupt) takes a holiday?

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.

 

[elapid]

Is it deceitful to ask for access to evidence, when the judge who's clearly protecting the guilty,(corrupt) takes a holiday?

I disagree. When investigated back in 2006, Spain did not have antidoping laws. Judge Serrano ruled on the laws as they applied at that time, namely the offense was punishable if it endangered the health of the athlete. He ruled it did not. He also ruled that antidoping laws which have since been passed cannot be applied retroactively to investigate and/or prosecute those athletes implicated in Operation Puerto. I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty certain that the retroactively applying a law would not be permissable in most first world countries. So no protection and no corruption, just the judiciary system at work.

 

[luckyboy]

Not sure what you're getting at there. Isn't this about trying to ban him from cycling, not retroactively applying the criminal law in Spain? (rhetorical question)

 

[RTMcFadden]

Not sure what you're getting at there. Isn't this about trying to ban him from cycling, not retroactively applying the criminal law in Spain? (rhetorical question)

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.

 

[Race Radio]

Through deceit.

I assume you are referring to Valverde when you talk about deceit. He lied for years about his involvement in OP.

Or are you referring to Seranno who gave the blood samples used for the positive DNA matches for Ulrich, Basso, and Scarponi....but would not release Valverde.

Or perhaps you are referring to Valverde's campaign of deceit since testing positive, searching for a loop hole to avoid the obvious?

Valverde is a doper, it would be deceitful to claim any different.

 

[Ripper]

The 'funny' thing in this case is, had Valverde admitted or at least worked with the authorities, he could have already served his ban and been back racing for around a year now.

Now, I know some people don't like the whole picking on people stuff; that everyone from OP should be investigated or no one should (rather than just a few big fish). But a few 'big fish' got tagged, and pretty clearly. Given the amount of small fry served up on a regular basis, it would be too much not to expect some level of fall out with the ones who have been named.

Valverde has picked the whole deny/defend tactic for a long time, and it does not look likely to continue working. So if the ban starts now, he really only would have himself and his legal team to blame.

Now for something really crazy - I like Valverde's racing, he is exciting to watch and talented. I also have some regrets that only a few have suffered due to OP (I also have that 'all or none' preference). Nevertheless, I want this to end and it should end with a ban.

Rant over ...

 

[Ripper]

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.

Not so soon grasshopper.

Who owns the car?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Through deceit.

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?

 

[RTMcFadden]

Who owns the car?

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

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I don't think anybody's claiming that Valverde isn't a doper. It's about the minutiae of a very complex case, which is seemingly filled with protectionism, corruption, deceit and lying on all sides, not just Valverde.

Btw, the Vuelta isn't part of the ProTour.

 

[Mellow Velo]

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

So says a doping apologist on his soap box.
Bank Robbers should be applauded, too, I take it.

Enough. I'll leave you to sulk over his demise. He's gone.