Valverde's in the clear

Well since the UCI decided that it was its privilege to decide on Ricco's suspension, they could very well decide to ban Valverde as well even if they rule that CONI was not competent to do so?
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
issoisso said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cycling-union-decides-on-24-month-ban-for-ricco

Pay careful attention to this particular bit:



Therefore, they logically also lack jurisdiction to suspend Valverde as well. So does this mean he's going to walk, despite the obvious guilt?

What's your view?

I might disagree. As I understand it, in the case of Ricco, CONI tried to issue a ban for an infraction in France (testing happened in France). In the case of Valverde, testing happened in Italy. This little detail might be the make or break issue. We'll see.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
But the original blood sample was obtained from the OP blood bag which was in Spain. While CONI collected the second sample in Italy which was subsequently DNA-matched to the blood bag from the OP case, their blood sample did not show any evidence of doping. Hence the infraction (ie, EPO-containing bag of blood belonging to Valverde) should originate in Spain and therefore is similar to the Ricco case.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
elapid said:
But the original blood sample was obtained from the OP blood bag which was in Spain. While CONI collected the second sample in Italy which was subsequently DNA-matched to the blood bag from the OP case, their blood sample did not show any evidence of doping. Hence the infraction (ie, EPO-containing bag of blood belonging to Valverde) should originate in Spain and therefore is similar to the Ricco case.

It's pretty late to respond to this, but I would disagree with this view. I do not think it matters where the actual act of doping happened (which for OP would likely be Spain). It matters where the doped rider competes.

So, in the Ricco case, the doped rider competed in France (where or when he actually injected CERA does not matter). So no jurisdiction for that infraction for CONI. In the case of Valverde, the doped rider competed in Italy (that's where they drew blood for the DNA comparison). Again, it does not matter where and when precisely he topped off.

The problem really is (and that is what I've glossed over in the previous paragraph), can you consider Valverde a 'doped rider' based on the DNA test on the blood drawn on Italian soil. CONI argues yes (and that would give them jurisdiction), Valverde argues no. It's still a different case from Ricco, hence why I think the Ricco case doesn't set precedence.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
krebs303 said:
Alejandro Valverde finally has a date with destiny.

November 16, to be exact, when the Court of Arbitration for Sport will hear testimony in the ongoing appeal on his two-year racing ban in Italy for links to the Operación Puerto blood doping scandal.

http://www.velonews.com/article/99281/cas-sets-november-date-for-valverde

I'd personally class his UCI hearing to determine if he will be given a global ban as far more important.
 
Mar 16, 2009
19,482
1
0
issoisso said:
I'd personally class his UCI hearing to determine if he will be given a global ban as far more important.

If CAS rules in favor of Valverde, he could be cleared of allegations that he was a Fuentes client. If CAS upholds the CONI ban, the UCI is expected to impose a universal ban, meaning Valverde could serve a two-year ban from racing his bike anywhere.
 
Jun 18, 2009
281
0
0
Cobblestones said:
It matters where the doped rider competes.

So, in the Ricco case, the doped rider competed in France (where or when he actually injected CERA does not matter). So no jurisdiction for that infraction for CONI. In the case of Valverde, the doped rider competed in Italy (that's where they drew blood for the DNA comparison). Again, it does not matter where and when precisely he topped off.

The problem with your scenario is that Valverde didn't actually dope, in this instance. The blood was drawn and stored in Spain and confiscated by the Spanish authorities. The blood was never used, so like Basso, there was never a follow-up act. CONI's possession of the blood came about throught the Spanish Authorities, not Valverde. So, I think there were not acts that tie the blood to Valverde while in Italy.

I think they should go back to the old days. The organization that issues the license is responsible for issuing the sanction. Then, they need to clean up that mess.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
RTMcFadden said:
The problem with your scenario is that Valverde didn't actually dope, in this instance. The blood was drawn and stored in Spain and confiscated by the Spanish authorities. The blood was never used, so like Basso, there was never a follow-up act. CONI's possession of the blood came about throught the Spanish Authorities, not Valverde. So, I think there were not acts that tie the blood to Valverde while in Italy.

Maybe, maybe not. Torri has said there is documentation involved in addition to the blood bag and we know there are at least records of Valverde's doping program in 2004. He rode the WC in Italy in 2004.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
More than that, we have a witness to Valverde's doping who is quite willing to testify, who spent quite a long time gathering evidence to present it to the courts....but of course that's all conveniently ignored.
 
issoisso said:
More than that, we have a witness to Valverde's doping who is quite willing to testify, who spent quite a long time gathering evidence to present it to the courts....but of course that's all conveniently ignored.

who is the witness? document that please.
 
the whole case is becoming an absurd.

The last stupidity to heard is that if he gets the worldban then the Vuelta title might be retired!!!! What's that! then they (UCI) should change/steal the results of all victories Valverder got since 200?????
2 liejas
1 Flecha
2 Dauphine
1 cataluña + burgos + 2 valencia + murcia
1 san sebastian, stages at Vuelta, Tour and so on?

No sense world, no sense at all
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RTMcFadden said:
The organization that issues the license is responsible for issuing the sanction. Then, they need to clean up that mess.

I doubt the Spanish Federation want to ban the second most popular spanish cyclist, do you? :rolleyes:

Just like Vino, just like Ricco, their respective national federations are a little more easy going than their neighbours

Kazakh Vino originally given 1 year ban by the Kazakhs - upgraded by UCI to 2
Italian Ricco downgraded from 2 year ban by Italians - ugraded by UCI to 2

The national federations aren't going to clean up their own mess, they will supress it so as to not look like they are responsible for cheating licenced riders, which is why the UCI should issue all bans on a consistent basis, so as to set precedent for the future.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
usedtobefast said:
who is the witness? document that please.

Seriously? Have you been living in a cave in mars? :eek:

(No offence, I'm just seriously surprised you didn't know about this. It was quite big at the time)

Jesus Manzáno, who rode for Kelme for years, described the doping practices in detail, presented himself as a willing witness to seeing Valverde dope with his own eyes, named countless riders, soigneurs and doctors.

He spent over a year gathering evidence of the people involved (of which he was one), of the common practices, of meeting and doping schedules, documentation, of all the drugs he and his teammates were given, records, when, how, etc, etc . He turned in a boatload to the authorities.

Of course the spanish courts just did what they always do when spanish riders are involved. They decided "meh, this boatload of evidence isn't enough to even open an investigation"

When that failed, he just (quite rightly) complained to the media that the whole system is corrupt.

As for Valverde in particular, I think Manzano summed it up best:
"Valverde está metido hasta el cuello en el caso Fuentes"
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
usedtobefast said:
who is the witness? document that please.

Seriously? Have you been living in a cave in mars? :eek:

(No offence, I'm just seriously surprised you didn't know about this. It was quite big at the time)

Jesus Manzano, who rode for Kelme for years, described the doping practices in detail, presented himself as a willing witness to seeing Valverde dope with his own eyes, named countless riders, soigneurs and doctors.

He spent over a year gathering evidence of the people involved (of which he was one), of the common practices, of meeting and doping schedules, documentation, of all the drugs he and his teammates were given, records, when, how, etc, etc . He turned in a boatload to the authorities.

Of course the spanish courts just did what they always do when spanish riders are involved. They decided "meh, this boatload of evidence isn't enough to even open an investigation". Later someone took an interest and started the entire Puerto investigation based on his evidence.....but of course that also ground to a halt as soon as bigger interests meddled in the affair.

When that failed, he just (quite rightly) complained to the media that the whole system is corrupt.

As for Valverde in particular, I think Manzano summed it up best:
"Valverde está metido hasta el cuello en el caso Fuentes"
 
issoisso said:
Seriously? Have you been living in a cave in mars? :eek:

(No offence, I'm just seriously surprised you didn't know about this. It was quite big at the time)

Jesus Manzano, who rode for Kelme for years, described the doping practices in detail, presented himself as a willing witness to seeing Valverde dope with his own eyes, named countless riders, soigneurs and doctors.

He spent over a year gathering evidence of the people involved (of which he was one), of the common practices, of meeting and doping schedules, documentation, of all the drugs he and his teammates were given, records, when, how, etc, etc . He turned in a boatload to the authorities.

Of course the spanish courts just did what they always do when spanish riders are involved. They decided "meh, this boatload of evidence isn't enough to even open an investigation". Later someone took an interest and started the entire Puerto investigation based on his evidence.....but of course that also ground to a halt as soon as bigger interests meddled in the affair.

When that failed, he just (quite rightly) complained to the media that the whole system is corrupt.

As for Valverde in particular, I think Manzano summed it up best:
"Valverde está metido hasta el cuello en el caso Fuentes"

I think the one who lives in Mars is just you. Can you trust a someone as Manzano????? did you ever listen to him talking???? if there is someone that has any, any credit is precisely Manzano, who wanted the fame he didn't have in a bicycle and whom way of speaking might indicate extrange substances making terrible effects in the brain....

if there is a witness that claims he saw UFO's, then you trust him?

Uhmm, wondering from which country are you...
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Aguirre said:
I think the one who lives in Mars is just you. Can you trust a someone as Manzano????? did you ever listen to him talking???? if there is someone that has any, any credit is precisely Manzano, who wanted the fame he didn't have in a bicycle and whom way of speaking might indicate extrange substances making terrible effects in the brain....
What has said Manzano is not very different of what was said by many others.
 
Jul 23, 2009
20
0
8,580
...and the trouble the Spanish authorities had with his case also is that doping was (at the time) not illegal in that country. Same goes for Puerto: they had to try to accuse Fuentes of 'irregularities in blood handling' or 'endangering patients health' in order to get him into the courts in the first place.

And as you can imagine, it becomes legally very hard to hand over 'evidence' to foreign courts for something that is not illegal. This background makes it very hard to catch dopers on a Spanish licence, based on years-old evidence.

Why else do you think all those cyclists had homes in Spain?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Aguirre said:
I think the one who lives in Mars is just you. Can you trust a someone as Manzano????? did you ever listen to him talking???? if there is someone that has any, any credit is precisely Manzano, who wanted the fame he didn't have in a bicycle and whom way of speaking might indicate extrange substances making terrible effects in the brain....

if there is a witness that claims he saw UFO's, then you trust him?

Uhmm, wondering from which country are you...

Can you give an example of what Manzano has said that it not been proven correct?

Who knew there were Valverde groupies?
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Ferminal said:
Yeh wtf is that about...

Anyone who's used to Aguirre's posts knows that the only reason he doesn't have his head physically inside Valverde's behind is because his tinfoil hat won't fit in there.
 
Oct 15, 2009
179
0
0
Race Radio said:
Who knew there were Valverde groupies?

Most people in Spain know it. More than that, most people in Spain not fanatically blinded are annoyed with Piti's groupies.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Cogombre said:
Most people in Spain know it. More than that, most people in Spain not fanatically blinded are annoyed with Piti's groupies.

I'd like to add (this is an addendum, not a counterpoint) that the phenomenom doesn't really choose country. I know blind british Valverde fans who will accept no reasoning or logic. And similar ones of other nationalities too.

Spanish ones are, of course, more common, since nationality tends to play a big part in blind fanatical bias (as seen by a small minority of almost every rider's fanbase), but they are in no way the rule.

PS: Nice to see you around here :) (and nice avatar!)
 
issoisso said:
Of course the spanish courts just did what they always do when spanish riders are involved. They decided "meh, this boatload of evidence isn't enough to even open an investigation".

Who was responsible for the catching and sentencing of Roberto Heras, Santiago Perez, Isodro Nozal and others? Just curious because I don't readily recall.