Valverde case delayed AGAIN!

[Race Radio]

I am writing in support of Galic Ho and his sentiments. For the record, I think Valverde did dope (blood and EPO) and my beliefs regarding this case having nothing to do with whether Valverde is one of my favourite riders (which he is not BTW). I believe that there is much more to this case than just doping. The judicial system trumps the UCI and national sports federations, despite how high and mighty McQuaid may think of himself and the UCI. The Spanish judiciary ruled according to the laws as they applied at that time and current laws should not be applied retroactively. My concerns with OP and Valverde's case are:

- Spanish judicial decisions are either not being recognized or respected
- CONI's actions/methods in obtaining the evidence from OP
- Why just Valverde and not every other rider implicated in OP?
- If others want to involve the IOC and WADA in this mess, then why not Rafael Nadal and other Spanish tennis players, Real Madrid and Barcelona, etc?

You are confused. This has nothing to do with laws being applied retroactively, they are not. It has been against the RULES to use EPO and Blood doping for decades.

Valverde is far from the only rider sanctioned in OP. Basso, Scarponi, Jascke all were sanctioned on similar evidence. Ulrich retired rather then face the inevitable. If you want more you should ask the Spanish and Portuguese Fed's.

FIFA and the ITF's unwillingness to pursue the possibility of their players being involved in OP should have no bearing on other Federations pursing sanctions.

 

[Big GMaC]

You are confused. This has nothing to do with laws being applied retroactively, they are not. It has been against the RULES to use EPO and Blood doping for decades.

Valverde is far from the only rider sanctioned in OP. Basso, Scarponi, Jascke all were sanctioned on similar evidence. Ulrich retired rather then face the inevitable. If you want more you should ask the Spanish and Portuguese Fed's.

FIFA and the ITF's unwillingness to pursue the possibility of their players being involved in OP should have no bearing on other Federations pursing sanctions.

No one is denying there are rules against EPO use and blood doping.
No one, not even Galic Ho is denying that Valverde did use EPO and blood doping (or was, in the mould of Basso thinking about doing so)
The issue surrounds the blood bags that are being used to show that this occurred. I am falling in support of Galic's position that while Valv Piti is guilty morally, it goes against the legal system to prosecute him using the evidence obtained through OP. If he get out unscathed it will not be because he is innocent. It will be because he has successfully manipulated the legal precedents to prevent the evidence that should used against him from being used against him, much in the way a previous poster used the anecdote of murders and rapists avoiding conviction through evidence being declared legally inadmissible in court, despite the fact that it may have led to a conviction.

 

[python]

Ok. im going to say my last words on the topic and go away because the endless proclamations of unfairness, injustice, illegality etc become boring and disinterest me.

Point 1: i always enjoyed valverdes racing including the 2010 p-n. he made it special and exciting. i knew he was a doper but i would never consider harsh actions against him until i read the 40+ page cas ruling yesterday.

Point 2. did valverde dope and attempt to use a banned method ?
yes and yes. hardly anyone, even his supporters, deny this. put two fingers up - that’s two instances of wada rule violations pertaining to his racing license and his own signature under the binding contract.

Point 3: did valverde and his lawyers play for time juicing their legal options to the max all to allow valverde continue earning 2.5 million euros per year?
yes and yes. Hardly anyone disputes that.

i don’t know what’s that with me. perhaps it’s may weird sense of justice that got warped after fladis's monumental lies, but i never felt compelled to help the abusers who dug deeper and deeper holes for themselves despite having better options and being asked to stop. Quite opposite, i feel they have to pay double for their deliberate abuse of the system and taking the sport and its fans for total fools

short story long - python’s verdict:

1. banned globally for blatant doping proven beyond a shadow of any doubt.
2. banned for life as allowed by the latest wada rules for 2 separate doping instances: with epo and attempted or actual blood transfusion.
3. keeps all his titles and prizes for victories up to April, 2010 because it's not possible to prove which were unclean.
4. pays back to the uci all earnings equivalent to the time by which the justice was delayed for blatant abuse of the system. just like landis.

case closed.

 

[elapid]

You are confused. This has nothing to do with laws being applied retroactively, they are not. It has been against the RULES to use EPO and Blood doping for decades.

Valverde is far from the only rider sanctioned in OP. Basso, Scarponi, Jascke all were sanctioned on similar evidence. Ulrich retired rather then face the inevitable. If you want more you should ask the Spanish and Portuguese Fed's.

FIFA and the ITF's unwillingness to pursue the possibility of their players being involved in OP should have no bearing on other Federations pursing sanctions.

Race Radio, I have always respected you and your posts. But, respectfully, I am not confused. This case has everything to do with the ruling of the Spanish judiciary system and subsequently CONI's use of evidence obtained in the OP case. There were no antidoping laws at the time the Spanish courts considered the OP case, it was only illegal if doping threatened the health of the athletes. The judge ruled that blood transfusions did not threaten the health of the athletes involved and that the evidence could not be used for future investigations or cases against those athletes. CONI used that evidence to ban Valverde in Italy, the same evidence that is now being pursued by the UCI for a worldwide ban.

I am not confused because I believe that the judicial system of any country ranks above their national sporting federations (or that of any other country).

Sure, Valverde doped and I have no argument with that. But so did many other riders and many other athletes. You mentioned the only three riders suspended because of OP. Three riders out of a total of 56 professional cyclists (I think) implicated in OP. Those three riders all confessed to their guilt, fair enough based on mounting evidence against them, but still confessions rather than positive tests. I am fully aware of the details of the OP case, who was implicated, who confessed, and that cyclists represent the tip of the iceberg. I am also quite aware of the rulings of the Spanish judiciary, CONI's suspension of Valverde, and the two cases against Valverde being ruled/considered by CAS. I think I have educated myself sufficiently on the case, and long expressed my opinions, that I do not need to go to the RFEC or Portugese for more information. I am also fully aware that Valverde is/was a doper. As for FIFA and/or ITF pursuing their players implicated in OP, then you just have to look at their history and the reaction of Real Madrid, Barcelona and Rafael Nadal, all of whom either threatened or successfully sued over allegations of involvement with Fuentes and OP.

So while I respect your opinion, I am not confused and I believe that Valverde should not be suspended, despite knowing he is/was a doper, because of the ruling of the Spanish courts, the manner in which CONI obtained/used the evidence from OP, and the fact that the vast majority of the other cyclists and athletes implicated in OP are not being investigated and prosecuted.

 

[Race Radio]

---- it goes against the legal system to prosecute him using the evidence obtained through OP. -----

This is where some posters seem to be confused. This has nothing to do with the legal system. Nothing. Valverde is not going to jail. He is not going to get a ticket. He did not break the laws of Spain at the time, he broke the rules of the sport.

Valverde broke the rules of the sport. The rules of the sport, and the methods by which they are enforced, are different from the legal system. As we are talking about a sporting sanction and not a legal one CAS is the final word. The opinions of the Spanish judge and Spanish law have no bearing on this.

 

[Race Radio]

Race Radio, I have always respected you and your posts. But, respectfully, I am not confused. This case has everything to do with the ruling of the Spanish judiciary system and subsequently CONI's use of evidence obtained in the OP case. There were no antidoping laws at the time the Spanish courts considered the OP case, it was only illegal if doping threatened the health of the athletes. The judge ruled that blood transfusions did not threaten the health of the athletes involved and that the evidence could not be used for future investigations or cases against those athletes. CONI used that evidence to ban Valverde in Italy, the same evidence that is now being pursued by the UCI for a worldwide ban.

I am not confused because I believe that the judicial system of any country ranks above their national sporting federations (or that of any other country).

Sure, Valverde doped and I have no argument with that. But so did many other riders and many other athletes. You mentioned the only three riders suspended because of OP. Three riders out of a total of 56 professional cyclists (I think) implicated in OP. Those three riders all confessed to their guilt, fair enough based on mounting evidence against them, but still confessions rather than positive tests. I am fully aware of the details of the OP case, who was implicated, who confessed, and that cyclists represent the tip of the iceberg. I am also quite aware of the rulings of the Spanish judiciary, CONI's suspension of Valverde, and the two cases against Valverde being ruled/considered by CAS. I think I have educated myself sufficiently on the case, and long expressed my opinions, that I do not need to go to the RFEC or Portugese for more information. I am also fully aware that Valverde is/was a doper. As for FIFA and/or ITF pursuing their players implicated in OP, then you just have to look at their history and the reaction of Real Madrid, Barcelona and Rafael Nadal, all of whom either threatened or successfully sued over allegations of involvement with Fuentes and OP.

So while I respect your opinion, I am not confused and I believe that Valverde should not be suspended, despite knowing he is/was a doper, because of the ruling of the Spanish courts, the manner in which CONI obtained/used the evidence from OP, and the fact that the vast majority of the other cyclists and athletes implicated in OP are not being investigated and prosecuted.

Once again, this has nothing to do with Spanish law. Nothing.

Nowhere in the WADA code is there a rule that would negate the method in which the evidence was obtained. If this was the case then Valverde's lawyers would have sited it, but they did not. There is also nothing in the code that says that because some escaped formal sanction that all should.

CONI proved that Valverde broke the rules of the sport. CAS agreed. He is now going to sit for two years.

 

[elapid]

This is where some posters seem to be confused. This has nothing to do with the legal system. Nothing. Valverde is not going to jail. He is not going to get a ticket. He did not break the laws of Spain at the time, he broke the rules of the sport.

Valverde broke the rules of the sport. The rules of the sport, and the methods by which they are enforced, are different from the legal system. As we are talking about a sporting sanction and not a legal one CAS is the final word. The opinions of the Spanish judge and Spanish law have no bearing on this.

But they are just opinions without evidence. The evidence is what links the rules of sport with the legal system in this case. The Spanish legal system ruled that evidence obtained from OP cannot be used for investigations and/or sanctions against athletes implicated in OP. Without the evidence, the case against Valverde does not exist.

 

[Big GMaC]

But they are just opinions without evidence. The evidence is what links the rules of sport with the legal system in this case. The Spanish legal system ruled that evidence obtained from OP cannot be used for investigations and/or sanctions against athletes implicated in OP. Without the evidence, the case against Valverde does not exist.

This for me is where the problems start occurring, the questions over the validity of the evidence. I would like to hear Publicus on this actually, I think he is a lawyer?

 

[Race Radio]

But they are just opinions without evidence. The evidence is what links the rules of sport with the legal system in this case. The Spanish legal system ruled that evidence obtained from OP cannot be used for investigations and/or sanctions against athletes implicated in OP. Without the evidence, the case against Valverde does not exist.

The Spanish legal system could rule that the world is ruled by little green men from Mars but CAS and CONI can still ignore it.

It does not matter what a Spanish judge says, this is about the rules of the sport not the laws of Spain. If the Spanish have trouble with how the evidence was obtained then they should sue CONI/WADA/CAS but this will still not change the CAS decision.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Race Radio, I have always respected you and your posts. But, respectfully, I am not confused. This case has everything to do with the ruling of the Spanish judiciary system and subsequently CONI's use of evidence obtained in the OP case. There were no antidoping laws at the time the Spanish courts considered the OP case, it was only illegal if doping threatened the health of the athletes. The judge ruled that blood transfusions did not threaten the health of the athletes involved and that the evidence could not be used for future investigations or cases against those athletes. CONI used that evidence to ban Valverde in Italy, the same evidence that is now being pursued by the UCI for a worldwide ban.

I am not confused because I believe that the judicial system of any country ranks above their national sporting federations (or that of any other country).

Sure, Valverde doped and I have no argument with that. But so did many other riders and many other athletes. You mentioned the only three riders suspended because of OP. Three riders out of a total of 56 professional cyclists (I think) implicated in OP. Those three riders all confessed to their guilt, fair enough based on mounting evidence against them, but still confessions rather than positive tests. I am fully aware of the details of the OP case, who was implicated, who confessed, and that cyclists represent the tip of the iceberg. I am also quite aware of the rulings of the Spanish judiciary, CONI's suspension of Valverde, and the two cases against Valverde being ruled/considered by CAS. I think I have educated myself sufficiently on the case, and long expressed my opinions, that I do not need to go to the RFEC or Portugese for more information. I am also fully aware that Valverde is/was a doper. As for FIFA and/or ITF pursuing their players implicated in OP, then you just have to look at their history and the reaction of Real Madrid, Barcelona and Rafael Nadal, all of whom either threatened or successfully sued over allegations of involvement with Fuentes and OP.

So while I respect your opinion, I am not confused and I believe that Valverde should not be suspended, despite knowing he is/was a doper, because of the ruling of the Spanish courts, the manner in which CONI obtained/used the evidence from OP, and the fact that the vast majority of the other cyclists and athletes implicated in OP are not being investigated and prosecuted.

By and large I agree with your post - and I to believe an athlete (like anyone) is entitled to fair proceedings.

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?

 

[pedaling squares]

This is an interesting scenario. I agree with RR that as the infractions are against sports regulations, not Spanish law, the Spanish judicial system should normally not be the authority that rules on admissibility of evidence, sanctions, etc. But these waters are murky. If my facts are correct, the blood was released to CONI by a Spanish judge, so the judicial system was already intimately involved in the Puerto case. What if any bearing will this have on the ability of CAS, UCI, or the Spanish cycling federation to suspend Valverde's licence to ride? I don't know. But I believe that in most nations, one can appeal a ruling of any court or governing body - eventually to the highest court in the land. Whether or not they choose to hear the case is another matter. There would likely have to be an extreme violation of Valverde's rights to get a high court to consider the matter worthy of review.

 

[Race Radio]

This for me is where the problems start occurring, the questions over the validity of the evidence. I would like to hear Publicus on this actually, I think he is a lawyer?

It would be nice to hear from him, but it would be irrelevant.

We are not talking about laws. This is about sanctions. The rules are not the same.

For an example about the difference between Spanish laws and the rules of the sport check out the rules for testing samples. These are far more stringent then any court would need to pass guilt.

Just because it would fly in a court room does not mean it would be the same for a governing body.

 

[Race Radio]

I believe that in most nations, one can appeal a ruling of any court or governing body - eventually to the highest court in the land. Whether or not they choose to hear the case is another matter.

A sporting sanction issued by a National Sports federation can only be appealed to CAS as they are the highest court in the land when it comes to sports. If we were talking about a case in the Spanish legal system it could be appealed to the highest court, but we are not.

 

[python]

By and large I agree with your post - and I to believe an athlete (like anyone) is entitled to fair proceedings.

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?

though you're right in principle you yourself keeping missing a key component in the case:

it was not coni but the italian police/justice system that requested and obtained the key evidence. coni only acted up on it in accordance with the law it operates under -the italian law.

 

[Race Radio]

though you're right in principle you yourself keeping missing a key component in the case:

it was not coni but the italian police/justice system that requested and obtained the key evidence. coni only acted up on it in accordance with the law it operates under -the italian law.

Not exactly. CONI is unique in it is actually part of the legal system. The AFLD is set up in a similar manner. Unlike other Fed's they do have the ability to request evidence via legal channels.

 

[python]

Not exactly. CONI is unique in it is actually part of the legal system. The AFLD is set up in a similar manner. Unlike other Fed's they do have the ability to request evidence via legal channels.

rr now you need to read better. what i said was EXACTLY what happened: the evidence was requested by the italian police and not coni. the cas rulling makes it clear. my statement never referred to coni's legal status. the important point is that the exchange of key evidence was under the appropriate agreements between judiciaries/legal organs of the two countries, not the antidoping agency (whatever its status with that country) and the spanish judge.

 

[Mellow Velo]

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.
This is the contention of those who support Valverde. While they may insinuate that CONI somehow acted deceitfully, in circumnavigating Serrano, their application was, unquestionably legitimate.
CONI nor CAS are bound by Spanish law, regardless of how the evidence was obtained. IF a procedural mistake was made, although there is no evidence to support this claim, it was on of the Spanish judicial system's making.
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.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

though you're right in principle you yourself keeping missing a key component in the case:

it was not coni but the italian police/justice system that requested and obtained the key evidence. coni only acted up on it in accordance with the law it operates under -the italian law.

True - as there were a lot of different agencies working together.
I use CONI to draw a distinction because they are part of that legal system and are separate to sporting federations,eg like the Italian Cycling Federation (FIC).

They are funded through the Ministry of Culture and have far more powers - it was the NAS (anti drug police) that actually went to Barcelona with a hematologist to retrieve a sample from "bag #18".

 

[Race Radio]

rr now you need to read better. what i said was EXACTLY what happened: the evidence was requested by the italian police and not coni. the cas rulling makes it clear. my statement never referred to coni's legal status. the important point is that the exchange of key evidence was under the appropriate agreements between judiciaries/legal organs of the two countries, not the antidoping agency (whatever its status with that country) and the spanish judge.

My point was that unlike other Federations CONI is actually part of the Italian government. They are the police. All Italian sporting federations answer up to them.

The reason they were successful in obtaining the evidence is because they are part of the judicial system. If other Fed's had made a similar request during Seranno's vacation they would have been turned down as they are not part of their countries judicial system. The AFLD has a similar format but they and CONI are unique. The fact is Seranno had been turning down legitimate requests from CONI for months.

 

[python]

My point was that unlike other Federations CONI is actually part of the Italian government. They are the police. All Italian sporting federations answer up to them.

The reason they were successful in obtaining the evidence is because they are part of the judicial system. If other Fed's had made a similar request during Seranno's vacation they would have been turned down as they are not part of their countries judicial system. The AFLD has a similar format but they and CONI are unique. The fact is Seranno had been turning down legitimate requests from CONI for months.

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.

 

[fatandfast]

Given that Valverde has plenty of places to keep his form good before the Tour it may be the UCI that needs to pull their head out before it's another shuffle of who really won. One year the guy quits with the yellow jersey because he forgot his Mexican address , another wins only to find out he did boiler makers the night before 50% JD,50% cera. The UCI has learned nothing since Pedro Delgado it has only gotten to be a bigger mess since.The iron fist approach to discipline may work but you have to be putting the fist in the right place. If the iron fist is missing look at McQuaid he is hiding it somewhere

 

[icefire]

We are not talking about laws. This is about sanctions. The rules are not the same.

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.

 

[Bike Rider]

It would be sad to see such a great rider banned at the peak of his career. He's gotten the closest to Contador of anyone recently. If he is banned then I doubt will win another big race. He would probably end up having to be a super domestique for the inform guy at that time.

 

[Ripper]

It would be sad to see such a great rider banned at the peak of his career. He's gotten the closest to Contador of anyone recently. If he is banned then I doubt will win another big race. He would probably end up having to be a super domestique for the inform guy at that time.

Gee, that would be terrible. It really suggests he should have just taken the ban when he was first nailed.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It would be sad to see such a great rider banned at the peak of his career. He's gotten the closest to Contador of anyone recently. If he is banned then I doubt will win another big race. He would probably end up having to be a super domestique for the inform guy at that time.

Sorry BPC - 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".

When someone is banned they need to serve their punishment.....if you know what I mean