ingsve said:
Just face the facts...You can't dispute DNA evidence no matter how hard you try. This case is far more clear than any positive doping test could ever be in my opinion. It shows without a doubt that Valverde was involved with organized doping with Fuentes no matter what the motivation for testing him was.
Just to play the devil's advocate (I don not really doubt that he doped/intended to dope)....
1) This is to assume that the blood and the DNA, which obviously match and are Valverde's,
is still enriched, so as to be able to prove doping. If the blood was enriched the centrifuge method, then how long does the increased red blood cell count remain detectible? (This is also to assume that Fuentes did not add foreign products to his blood). The only thing the connection between blood and DNA proves, is that his blood was at Fuentes's lab. But if the blood does not contain any traces (after 3 yrs isn't that likely?) anymore, they can't even prove doping.
2) Besides, they can only prove '
intent to use doping'. He never got caught in competition. Basso got bluffed and squealed like a pig when the allegations where made. If he had denied charges, what could they prove? IMO nothing... To illustrate:
If you have a loaded gun at home, does that mean you intend to kill someone? So the next step is to try for possession of a loaded gun, (if that's illegal due to gun laws), but again Valverde, nor Basso were even in possession of 'enriched blood'. They could very well argue that they entrusted Fuentes with blood for analysis, and that he had unvoluntarily enriched it...
This does not mean race organizers would not exclude him from competing, but I don't see how they could
prove anything...