Valverde Facing a Two-Year Ban

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
I cannot say that I am unhappy to see Valverde get his, but the widely different treatment of OP riders has become a bit of a joke. Some riders get convicted and are welcomed back. Others get convicted and cannot find a job. Others dont' get convicted but are chased out of mainstream racing. While still others are being guaranteed as clean by Pat McQuaid.

If there are going to be rules against doping then there needs to be uniform enforcement and treatment of the riders. It makes you wonder why some riders are treated one way and others are treated a different way. Why does Contador get a UCI blessing and Allan Davis hung out to dry?
 
Apr 2, 2009
5
0
0
New WADA rules are needed!

Indeed it has been anoying with this lack of speed in Operacion Puerto. Everything got on standby, when the Spanish court refused to handover evidense, as long as the court case against Fuentes still was being arbitrated. To many it seems strange, that Italy and Germany were able to put their riders towards justice, while Spain decided to ignore the case. The reasons for this are many. We have some difference in culture and national legislation making a difference. But after a narrow consideration it seems like we have a problem, that really should be solved by better WADA rules!

Operacion Puerto is not the first time we experience this situation, where we have to accept unbereable waiting time! Recently we had to wait 4 years before the implicated riders (Di Luca, Mazzoleni, etc) in "Operation Oil For Drugs (2004)" were put for trial in Italy. And before that, the same thing happend in "Giro Blitz (2001)", where a lot of years went on before the riders (primarily from Mercatone Uno) were judged in the sports trial. Lately we also have Luca Paolini being implicated in "Operation Athene (2006)", but also in a waiting position for the civil court to close their arbitration, before the sports court can judge.


As you have all probably figured out, we have the problem each time a police investigation dismantle riders/teams involved in some doping business. Most countries have procedures where the evidence from a case in civil court, can not be transfered to the sports court, before the case has been closed in civil court. Of course it has something to do, with "Civil court" being a superior court in our society, compared to the "Sports court". But I think WADA really needs to fix this problem, so it becomes possible for a "Sports court" to arbitrate all cases at the sports level, before the "Civil court" has handed out their final judical verdict.

To me it seems like WADA hasnt been aware of this problem earlier, but I hope they will soon realise something has to be done. And it shouldnt be that difficult, they could for instance just arrange a special CAS tribunal, where some handpicked prosecutors and judges can get access to confidential "Civil court" material, and base their work on that (with only the non confidential parts being announced in the sports court). That way each court will be happy. The Civil court for keeping the informations confidential, and the Sports court for handing out the judgements in a timely manner, towards the athletes and fans. ;)
 
Mar 27, 2009
17
0
0
I think Valverde's defence is interesting. He's not saying "the bag isn't mine", he's only saying that "CONI have no jurisdiction in this case". I know how I interpret that and I suspect that know how the UCI will, too.

The bit I'm not clear on is, if Valverde gets off on a legal technicality (i.e. inadmissable evidence rather than DNA does not provide irrefutable evidence) I understand that he can't be prosecuted in Italy. But, if the DNA is proved to match beyond reasonable doubt, can the UCI ban him globally despite the collapse of any case against him in Italy?

Graham.
 
Apr 2, 2009
5
0
0
Graham said:
if Valverde gets off on a legal technicality (i.e. inadmissable evidence rather than DNA does not provide irrefutable evidence) I understand that he can't be prosecuted in Italy. But, if the DNA is proved to match beyond reasonable doubt, can the UCI ban him globally despite the collapse of any case against him in Italy?
First of all, it would take some kind of miracle for Valverde, to escape being suspended 2 years by the Italian Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping (TNA). The CONI prosecutor has asked for that judgement to be confirmed. The decision from TNA will arrive within 4 weeks, and both the CONI prosecutor and Valverde will afterwords be allowed to appeal the decision to CAS.

You can perhaps speculate, wether or not UCI will decide to adopt the decision from TNA to a world wide scale, but as somebody in this forum already explained, then UCI as a signatory of the WADA code, will have to adopt the decision of TNA (whatever it might be) on a world wide scale. The point is, that the parties all have the right to appeal to CAS, but are also obliged to respect the final judical decision across all borders.

To make my answer short: TNA will likely suspend Valverde 2 years, and then Valverde will likely appeal the decision to CAS. When the decision from TNA is known, its also possible for RFEC and UCI to appeal the decision. But they all have to accept the final CAS decision, that will be enforced on a world wide scale.

Currently the arbitration time at CAS is 6 months from the day of the appeal. So if the decision from TNA gets appealed ultimo April by either Valverde/CONI, then we will only know the final CAS verdict in ultimo October. Until then, all the parties have to accept the ruling of TNA (whatever it will be).

I am rather sure, that Valverde wont be riding any more races for the next 2-years. But of course we now have to wait for the TNA decision to arrive. Normaly they make their decision 2-4 weeks after the CONI prosecutor has published his referal. So we can expect it to arrive by the end of April. :)
 
Graham said:
I think Valverde's defence is interesting. He's not saying "the bag isn't mine", he's only saying that "CONI have no jurisdiction in this case". I know how I interpret that and I suspect that know how the UCI will, too.
Same defence Flandis used, "you had no right to check for synthetic testosterone because my Testo/epi ratio was not 11:1 as originally found but less than 4".

While this may help in a civil court it certainly shouldn't in a "sports court", ban the guy.

So whose blood is still over there ? I find it hard to believe the mad doc' only had blood for Ullrich, Basso and Valverde ?
 
Apr 2, 2009
1
0
0
Valverde facing two year ban

The Spanish Federation has been allowing its riders to cheat for years. A simple glance at major race results will show a disproportionate number of Spanish riders in the top twenty places of many important events over the past several. The Italians had the same experiences until their federation and police decided to get involved, and their results haven't been nearly as impressive since.

Valverde got caught, plain and simple. The Italians are trying to do what the Spanish authorities should have already done, and I don't blame them a bit.
 
Apr 1, 2009
2
0
0
Finally:cool: Other riders connected to Fuentes have received penalties. In the meantime however, Valverde has won several big races and earned a lot of money.
 
Mar 17, 2009
6
0
0
Guilt by compensation

mr. tibbs said:
Makes me sad. I like Valverde a lot, and I've always enjoyed his exciting finishes.
I hate to admit it, but the sports fan in me agrees with Mr. Tibbs: riders who can climb with the mountain goats, and then outkick pure sprinters in a bunch gallop are a wonder to behold.

While all of us have long had ample evidence to suspect that riders like Valverde and Bettini are simply too good to be true, it is now officially time to face the facts (forget the flames, Bettini fans, they'll only cast a more glaring light on your repressed knowledge that his star was fueled by EPO).

Riders do not come "wondrously" equipped BOTH with otherworldly power-to-weight ratios AND the freakish explosivity of track sprinters by nature.

Even worse is the corollary truth that we as sports fans, by wanting to believe in riders like Valverde for the excitement they have brought to the sport, are even more culpable for financing their activities via TV contracts and equipment purchases than the Spanish Cycling Federation is for enabling them with their legal obstructionism.

Professional cyclists would not be there in the first place for a federation to defend if there were no money to be made off millions of fans living in a state of willful suspension of disbelief.
 
Mar 27, 2009
17
0
0
Golden Hawk said:
First of all, it would take some kind of miracle for Valverde, to escape being suspended 2 years by the Italian Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping (TNA). The CONI prosecutor has asked for that judgement to be confirmed. The decision from TNA will arrive within 4 weeks, and both the CONI prosecutor and Valverde will afterwords be allowed to appeal the decision to CAS.

You can perhaps speculate, wether or not UCI will decide to adopt the decision from TNA to a world wide scale, but as somebody in this forum already explained, then UCI as a signatory of the WADA code, will have to adopt the decision of TNA (whatever it might be) on a world wide scale. The point is, that the parties all have the right to appeal to CAS, but are also obliged to respect the final judical decision across all borders.
I'm not sure that this answers my point...

Valverde seems to be focussing his defence on the legality of what CONI have done. There is, therefore, a possibility that the outcome of this process is that Valverde can't be suspended in Italy because of the process rather than the evidence. In that situation, if it can still be shown that the evidence proves that the bag is his, are the UCI allowed to use that evidence to suspend him?

Graham.
 
Much of this stuff is wishful thinking. One or two of the points this guy makes, may have a legal "leg" to stand on:-
http://newcyclingpathways.blogspot.com/2009/03/15-reasons-why-valverde-should-be-able.html

Graham: I don't know if this is a "fair" comparison, but the UCI issued a worldwide ban on Schumacher, off a French ban. Admittedly, his was for a positive test.
However, if the DNA is defined as proof, as it should be and the bag of blood contained EPO.....
 
Apr 2, 2009
5
0
0
Graham said:
I'm not sure that this answers my point...

Valverde seems to be focussing his defence on the legality of what CONI have done. There is, therefore, a possibility that the outcome of this process is that Valverde can't be suspended in Italy because of the process rather than the evidence. In that situation, if it can still be shown that the evidence proves that the bag is his, are the UCI allowed to use that evidence to suspend him?
Well, I gave a long answer in my previous post to try and draw the complete picture. I wanted to answer the question by what I wrote, but I guess my answer perhaps came out in a slightly unclear way. The point is, that in case Valverde will be succesfull to convince the judge of TNA, that he shouldnt be suspended due to "incompetence"/"illegal investigation" by CONI, then it will still become a decision that can be appealed by either CONI/UCI/RFEC to CAS.

The interesting part about Valverdes case, is that all the evidence is clear and ready. So the only remaining question is, will they be legally allowed to use it? The answer to that question is a clear YES. Important point in this case (that Cyclingnews managed to forget to report), is that it wasnt CONI who did the DNA comparison, but actualy it was the Public Prosecutor in Rome. When Valverde arrived for the hearing at CONI's office, the Carribeneri also handed him a "legal warning", to inform him that he was now also part of a civil court investingation in Rome.

If Valverde claim that CONI has no jurisdiction to investigate any Spanish rider, he is in principal corrrect, because its the job of RFEC to take care and investigate the Spanish riders. But in Valverdes case, it was not CONI who investigated, it was the Public Prosecutor who investigated and were able to proof a positive DNA match, and then simply transfered the findings to CONI. According to Italian law, CONI has jurisdiction to also ban foreign athletes from Italian soil, but cant investigate those who dont compete on Italian soil! Their legislation is clear, and no mistakes have been made.

So when Valverde state in his "defence" that its an illegal investigation, I believe its just a desperate try to launch a decoy in his media campaign, to try and save his image. I dont think its really supposed to be his legal defense, when his lawyer present his case towards TNA. But we will learn more about it, when the decision from TNA arrives.


The job for UCI towards all riders in Operation Puerto, is to write indictment reports on those names they believe are implicated, and then ask the riders national federations to open up sports trials. UCI wrote the first indictment reports on around 50 riders back in August 2006, but in October 2006 they asked all the federations to put all the sports trials on standby, due to the fact that the Spanish judge had refused to share the evidence with any sports court (as long as the case was still running against Fuentes). So as long as the civil court case against Fuentes is still running in Spain, UCI can not do anything on their own hand towards Valverde or other implicated riders. No matter the strength of the proofs, they can only wait until the time where they are allowed to actualy use the evidence.

To make a long story short, it takes for the time being a collaboration between a sports court and a public prosecutor, before the sports court can convict a rider guilty, based on the evidence in Operacion Puerto. CONI had a collaboration with the Public prosecutor in Rome in order to catch Valverde. In Italy it was also possible for CONI (due to being a partly governmental organisation), to launch the cases against implicated Italian riders back in April 2007.
 
Apr 1, 2009
120
0
0
Golden Hawk,
It seems you know your stuff. Any thoughts on the "attempted to dope" argument that can be pursued by Valverde? Basso used that route and he got 2 years (eventhouh Bruynie signed him up.) Do you think that because he is not an Italian rider and member of REFC makes any difference?
 
Part 1 -

Here's a background on Operation Puerto and Alejandro Valverde. I'll do my best to be succinct. First, most of this is referenced in the Cycling News Vault on OP. Follow that link for everything you need to know.

OP Broke in spring of 2006. Three years ago now. There were over 200 athletes listed in more than one sport. So far cyclists are the only ones gone after, and only a handful have been successfully prosecuted and punished for their involvement.

If you weren't paying attention, no worries, here's the short of it: The case got tied up in Spanish courts, as the Spaniards were more interested in going after Fuentes and Saiz than the riders. During that time a 6,000 page report was released to the UCI, WADA, AIGCP (riders), and a few copies were leaked - more on this in a moment. In August of 2006 the UCI tried to prevent Valverde from riding in the World's that year. The case quickly went to CAS who ruled in Valverde's favor, and Valverde has raced every since. A lot of people have sqabbled that REFC has been defending Spanish riders, especially Valverde, but REFC has actually sought information from the blood bags, they have just been slow and specific about it, and as mentioned, been more interested in Fuentes, Saiz and their helpers.

Last year when Valverde raced in Italy, CONI was saving blood samples from every racer that was racing there, with a well planned attempt at taking the information from the blood bags seized, and matching them to riders DNA. As CONI is more intertwined with the Italian government that other sporting orginizations, they sought not only to get Valverde suspended, but to have him charged legally, which they did. The only rider they have gone after so far is Valverde. Ettore Torri of CONI said they would go after many others, and Valverde was only the start. So far, nothing has been mentioned in regards to other riders.

How they got the DNA from the bags is another story, as it wasn't in the 6,000 page report. The main judge overseeing the case, Justice Serrano, took a vacation, and the replacement judge agreed to have the information released. RFEC head Jaime Lissavetsky did defend Spain's decision to allow Valverde on the World's team in 2006, noting the ruling by Serrano, and that having Valverde under suspicion without a formal investigation was not within then guidelines by the CSD (Spanish Superior Council). He has none the less asked Serrano for access to the blood bags again on March 24th of this year. After this, WADA president John Fahey echoed the request as well for "sports" not just cycling.

After being issued the charges by CONI, Valverde and his attorneys wasted no time going on the offensive, making several key arguments and demanding evidence in CONI's case against him. Here's
a link to the info on CN
, about half-way down the page. In short,
I'll summarize what they are arguing:

? Spain and RFEC hold both Valverde's racing license, and jurisdiction,
not Italy and CONI.

? No time and place of any violation is given proving Valverde committed
any offense.

? No proof exists that he committed any crime on Italian soil, or violated
any Italian sporting rules.

? The rules CONI references to apply, Article 2.2 of the WADA code and
article 2.11 of Italian anti-doping rules, are invalid, as they did not
even exist during the time Fuentes clinic was open, and he was operating
his business.

Keep in mind that in 2006 Spain passed their own anti-doping rules as well, but courts ruled that such laws could not be applied retroactively (this was appealed and countered). Also keep in mind that Spain and RFEC aren't likely to take DNA samples and match them on their own the way CONI did anytime soon. But on the 8th of Feb they started proceedings against eight people involved, starting with Fuentes, Saiz, Vicente Belta, DS of Liberty at the time, and various medical professionals and assistants to Fuentes. REFC worked with UCI and WADA to pursue this. But the Spaniards are first treated as a criminal case, more than a sporting one.

Where does that leave us? I agree with the others that even if Valverde can keep out of legal trouble, CONI can put heavy pressure on the UCI (and thus ASO, and RFEC) to keep Valverde from racing. However, in the long run it's going to be messy. Let me explain in part 2.
 
Part 2 -

Assuming CONI can get Valverde suspended, and the case goes to CAS, which is what I think will happen, there's still going to be the issue whether there is any proof of active doping in the blood bags belonging to Valverde. Some said they thought EPO was found in the bag, but the bag(s) in question are actually plasma, not blood. Thus they have already been treated. Determining if the plasma contained blood pre-draw, or post, I'm not sure how possible that is. Adding to this, all kinds of claims can be made on his behalf from the "I only intended to dope" Basso argument to the more absurd, "I only gave a blood to have it analyzed and didn't know what they were doing with it" argument. But how absurd is that? Only because it's assumed no one would give that much blood except for doping? I wouldn't buy it, but I'm not exactly without opinion, and I'm sure his attorneys will use any argument they can to convince a judge or panel of arbiters that this isn't solid evidence of doping to cheat.

Keep in mind that Valverde rode for Saiz and Kelme from 2002-2004, and no hard evidence exists showing any contact or money transfers between Valverde and Fuentes/Saiz after that, that we know of.

Also keep in mind that the WADA anti-doping code gives an eight year statute of limitations, then it's considered that it's just too late and the case is no longer pursued. An argument could be made that the blood was drawn by Kelme when Valverde first arrived (2002); the naive youngster just went along with what he was told, as they were only removing blood; and the good doctor (who technically joined Kelme in 2003, but was with Saiz and Once long before that) held on to it all that time. And in just a few months eight years have passed... Ridiculous? Maybe. But indefensible, and easy to sort out and get to the bottom of? Several times over the past three years Valverde admitted being treated by Fuentes while at Kelme several times, but never once was he doped (to his knowledge). As previously noted, there are no hard dates listed or connected to Valverde's blood bag, or in the books. Often only month and day were listed, no year. And much of that in code. Follow this link to see if you can decipher some of it.

Also keep in the back of your head how the evidence sits. In theory Valverde could cause a stir by saying something akin to "It probably is my blood, I rode for Kelme back 6-7 years ago when Fuentes was their doctor and they were testing us all the time. That doesn't mean I doped." Like I said, it may sound absurd, but is it's definitely not an indefensible claim that can be instantly dismissed, while assuming what happened is something else that is not defined, and not backed by hard evidence.

He has another problem though, and that is testimony given by Jesus Manzano stating that when the two were on Kelme, Valverde "got the same treatment as everyone else" (2002), and it wasn't very discreet. Manzano also made the claim (similar to Simeoni) that nearly every cyclist riding at the time was doped to one degree or another, and it wasn't a huge secret.

To me it's pretty likely he doped or planned on doping, probably up through about 2005, Along with everyone else on in OP, and probably 80% of the riders during that time. But we're talking evidence here, not opinion.

Another thing to consider is punishment matching the "crime". For example, Ivan Basso had 7 bags of blood attributed to him in Fuentes vault. Valverde only 1 bag of plasma. Does it matter? Maybe. But compare this situation to that of Danilo Diluca who was implicated in the "Oil for Drugs" scandal. While Diluca never tested positive for anything, and apparently cooperated, he also used the "only intended to dope" argument. But Diluca got a 3 month, off-season sentence. So what would be just for Valverde, who so far hasn't cooperated?

What's puzzling to me sifting through all this is that Valverde doesn't actually appear to be heavily implicated in OP. Not as much as Basso seemed to be for example. It looks like he's just another name on the ledger, with "Ale" "Manc" "Popo" "Vino" "Sevillano" "Klaus", "Rosa" "LAS", etc. I can't seem to understand why the UCI singled him out early on, and why CONI and now the UCI continue to do so? I mean, let's take a look at the who's who list of OP in the next post...
 
Part 3 -

Sorry, list in part 4. Forgot somethings.

I mentioned before that some leaks of the 6,000 page dossier were out there. One was to anti-doping crusader, microbiologist Werner Franke. For those out of the loop here, Franke has a history with Jan Ullrich. In about 2006 he repeatedly tried to get Ullrich to confess and finger those who "poisoned" him, stating that Jan had a child-like mindset and couldn't have possible known what most of the things there were pumping into him were. Apparently Franke once confronted Jan face to face asking him to help. When Jan instead tried to hide, and Franke got the dossier, he filed a lawsuit against Jan (and Rudy Pevenage separately) claiming sporting fraud and several other things. Franke has also stated that the report proves that Contador doped. However, when pressed Franke admitted he was not fluent in Spanish (he says he reads enough of it though), and that he had not concretely deciphered the coding in Fuentes books any more than the police and other officials had. The point is this though. I am not exactly sure how German law works, but the word is that Franke plans on issuing the report in the court as evidence. And once the case ends, the evidence can be made public. So after that point in time, we'll might get a more complete analysis of the thing when it's out in the public for all to read.

Back to the testing and getting the case moving. CONI and Torri have calmly stated they plan on going through all of the blood bag DNA and match it to DNA, Valverde is just the beginning. I say if we're going after Valverde, let's go after everyone, and everyone at the same time. However, if this (CONI's testing and matching) is how we're going to get to the bottom of OP, we won't be getting to the bottom. Some of the most likely riders to have heavily doped during that time (Hamilton, Mancebo, Sevilla) didn't compete in Italy in 2007 or 2008, and won't this year. Thus there will be no blood taken to match to blood bags or records. So no justice there.

The total number of blood bags was 224. Out of that, 56 were ascribed to cyclists. Later on that list grew to about 107 of the blood bags most likely cyclists, but several were duplicates. The list of other athletes has never been listed in any way. I don't know about you guys, but I'd sure like to hear about the Futbol (soccer) and Tennis players supposedly on that list. I too am sick of cycling being the punching bag for doping. Ours is one of the few sports actually trying to stop doping. None the less, without further adieu, here it is the list of names...
 
Part 4 -

Here it is, the big laundry list of OP riders as per the paperwork. I tried to add in parentheses any progression in their case:

Andrle Alonso
Baranowski
Basso (DNA matched, suspended, back racing)
Beloki (retired)
Bernab?u
Blanco
Bonilla
Botero (Rock Racing)
Cabello
Caruso
Cherro
Edo
D.Etxebarria (retired)
Gomis
J.E.Gutierrez
J.Ignacio Gutierrez
Hamilton (RR)
Hernandez
Hruska
Jaksche (confessed, but forced to retire)
E.Jimenez
Latasa,
Lloret
Mancebo (RR),
Martinez,
Mu?oz
Nozal
Olmo
A.Osa,
U.Osa,
Santiago Perez (already suspended from 2004 Vuelta)
R.Plaza
Pascual-rodriguez,
A.Quesada,
C.Quesada,
N.Ribeiro
Scarponi
Serrano
Sevilla (RR),
Ullrich (DNA matched, retired)
Vicioso
Zaballa
Zarate
Casero (retired)
I.G.Galdeano (retired, works for Euskatel)
Roberto Heras (retired)
Pascual-Llorente (retired)

The amount of information pertaining to these riders differs. It's not like there's a big list saying "dopers" with them listed. For example, little apparently is written about Roberto Heras, but numerous papers point to Tyler Hamilton, like the infamous FAXes listing a detailed, mega doping plan.

The following six were accused, but considered completely cleared with no blood in bags, and no list of actual doping in books.

A.Davis (fully cleared)
Ballester
Contador
Gil (retired, though offered DNA to clear his name)
Paulinho
LL Sanchez
Frank Schleck was later accused, but cleared when evidence appeared to show he only paid Fuentes through his father for a training plan and analysis, without getting anything in return.

Here are the code names. These have either been tied to riders by speculation (wild or otherwise), or remain unknown. Following the name I listed some general guesses as to who it might be. Again, these are guesses by myself and others only.

? Panticosa ? It?s a mountain town with 600 inhabitants, build around an alpine ski resort (located in Aragon-Huesca province)
? Pavarotti ?could this be Cipollini (because he was a very ?loud speaking? man from Italy)?
? Pepito ? Manzano mentioned a rider called "Pepito Flores? (Bettini is called ?pepito grillo?; pepito is also a nickname for Jose)
? Cowboy ? could be Armstrong, many have earlier called him a Cowboy, because he lives in Texas, but who knows?
? Obelisk ? Someone tall? Thin? (Rasmussen?)
? Nibelungo ? Thought to be one of Ullrich's nicknames (The title of a German national epos, rewritten as an Opera), but could be another German rider.
? LAS ? could this be Lastras / Laslo Bodrogi? Perhaps Lance ArmStrong?
? Mar?a - According to Jesus Manzano, this nickname/codename belongs to the deceased rider Jose Maria Jimenez.
? Rosa ? most likely the winner of the Giro ?maglia rosa?. Could this be Savoldelli? Or it could be someone who held the jersey at any given time?
? Valv.(Piti) ? Valverde (he also has a dog called Piti)
? Urko - rumoured to be Pereiro at first (Urko is an old mythical legend about a dog, found in the local city Pontevedra he origins from), but Pereiro was fully cleared and never seriously linked.
? C?sar ? Italian king or leader...? Someone from Rome?
? MZD
? Hijo Rudico - Ullrich ("son of Rudy" Pevenage).
? Clasic?mano Luigi ?most likely a special client of Dr. Luigi Cecchini, noted doping doctor who was highly suspected to have collaborated with Fuentes.
? Huerta ? Name of a small town with 285 inhabitant in Castilla y Leon, Salamanca. But it could also be a region in either Murcia or Valencia.
? Clasic?mano ? Likely a Classics specialist like Bettini/DiLuca/Rebellin/Freire?
? Gemma - ??
? Amigo de Brillo ? translates to ?friend of Birillo? (Basso's dog). Probably his brother in law, Eddy Mazzolini, who later popped positive while riding for Astana. Some say Frank Schleck, but the Schlecks were cleared. Others say this is Lombardi who lives in Madrid, and is friends with Basso.
? Rosa ? Unknown, again, could be a winner, or holder of the Maglia Rosa.
? Vino - Vinokourov
? PTNI ?Investigators believe this most likely is PanTaNI
? Sevillano ? Oscar Sevilla
? Santi-P ? Santiago Perez
? 4142 - Tyler Hamilton
? Atr ? Aitor Gonzalez?
? Bella - Likely Jorg Jasche
? Rh - Roberto Heras?
? Sancti Petri - ?
? Sansone ? ?
? Nicolas - ?
? Porras - ?
? 1ai - ?
? Zapatero -
? Oso - ?
? Guti - ?
? Alcalde - ?
? Vcs - ?
? Goku - ?
? Vains - ?

Here?s some info on the blood bags as pertaining to cyclists.

9 belonged to Jan Ullrich
7 to Ivan Basso
3 to Jorg Jaksche
2 to Michele Scarponi
1 of blood plasma to Valverde
Most of the others are 1 bag.

Don't forget about the fact that Fuentes friend and fellow doping doctor Luigi Cecchini's name appears throughout the paperwork.
 
I see you manage to clear Mr Contador, him not being in the documents and all.
So what happened to:-
The initials of what appear to be all members of the Liberty Seguros team are listed, including one identified as 'AC'. The programme for AC is listed,in Spanish, as 'nothing or the same as JJ'. And JJ's plans for 2005 were to 'always have I-2'.

Better quote a couple of legit sources.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-471522/Now-man-hoped-save-Tour-faces-new-inquiry-doping-allegations.html

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t417167.html (translation from German news journal)

There's a photo somewhere, if I can find it.....
 
Mar 27, 2009
17
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
? No proof exists that he committed any crime on Italian soil, or violated any Italian sporting rules.
This is the one that I find most interesting as I think it is the easiest for Valverde's laywers to use. I don't see how they can argue that this was done in an area that came under Italian jurisdiction because there is no proof that the blood doping was carried out in Italy or that he raced in Italy whilst under the influence of blood doping.

That said, along with Golden Hawk's comments, I think the most likely outcome is that CONI lose their case in the Italian courts, appeal to CAS and CAS take a more international view and state that Valverde is guilty of doping and he gets his ban.

Graham.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Professional Road Racing 66

ASK THE COMMUNITY