Valverde's appeal dismissed, UCI moves to make ban worldwide
by TheFigurehead on Mar 16, 2010 11:45 AM EDT
Email
PrintThe Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed the appeal filed by the Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde against the decision of the National Olympic Committee of Italy (CONI) suspending him for two years from all sports events organized on Italian soil. As a consequence, the suspension remains in force until 10 May 2011.
PDF-version of the press release. There will be a hearing later this week on WADA and UCI vs Valverde and the Spanish federation.
Update: CN - Valverde disputes CAS decision on his Italian ban
In a statement, the partiality of one of the CAS arbiters was questioned, as was the right to use evidence collected during the Operación Puerto blood doping investigation. It was also claimed that the decision had violated Valverde's basic human rights.
Update: UCI determined to extend ban worldwide
The UCI has noted the ruling issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on the appeal of Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde against the decision of the Italian National Anti-doping Tribunal to suspend him from all sports events organised in Italy for a two-year period beginning in May 2009, for having breached the anti-doping rules in the context of “Operation Puerto”.
The UCI welcomes the decision of the CAS, which confirms the conclusions the UCI reached after conducting a thorough review of the documents relating to the Puerto case, and of Alejandro Valverde’s involvement in it.
Consequently, after careful study of the grounds of the CAS decision, the UCI expresses its determination to take the necessary measures to secure a suspension that is applicable internationally.
551 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yay! Now if only they ban him worldwide.
(Unrelated: I like the font they used on the press release)
"Awesome! is more about what gets fans excited than what’s harder to do." - Chris...
that explains a lot.
"Awesome! is more about what gets fans excited than what’s harder to do." - Chris...
Image is everything.
substance.. meh not so.
by Christopher See on Mar 16, 2010 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
This is what makes the PdC great
Who else is on the font story? Who???
"The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is." Edvald Boasson Hagen
by Chris Fontecchio on Mar 16, 2010 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn't it just Times?
The body text, I mean. And I don’t mean Times New Roman, that’s a little lighter, I think. The grey title I definitely recognise, with slanted serif on the T, and it’s a fairly mainstream font, but can’t remember its name right now.
Yup, it's Times (non-"New Roman")
Times-Italic and Times-Roman. That at least is the body text. (Turning it into a .pdf makes it appear slightly more bold than one would see in a word processing program.)
Meanwhile, the header font remains elusive. The embedded fonts are called “TTE28C9720t00” and “TTE29CA700t00”. I have no idea what the street name is for these fonts.
At least it’s not Arial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwuFCBwVYFw
A subversively casual little typeface
Light and solid, but look at those beaks on the “T” and the “Z”… all slanted and lazy looking. Like a banker hiding full-sleeve tattoos under his three-piece suit…
We have garamond labels in the gallery at the minute.
Never again. You need the text to be like 20 pts or more to make them properly legible. Huge labels. Nice font though, which is why we went with it. Just really wrong use. Serif fonts in general are difficult though, despite the truism that they’re actually more legible.
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
garamond is cool. i love galliard
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
or goudy old style
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
Oh I like this very much.
I might have to start using this. I have it lying around someplace.
But in a dense text, it's easier to read...
although it’s aesthetically less pleasing.
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
Ha!
I can’t decide whether this beats the Herring or not.
I do like me some Garamond, though. Use it quite often as my screen font.
I think we posted exactly at the same moment
Yes Garamond is a fav of mine too. At first I thought it was Stone Informal, but nope….
I expect the UCI has just been waiting to make sure the Italian ban held before extending it.
Not sure if they’ll also wait until after the next CAS hearing, where they and WADA take the Spanish fed to task for not moving against Valverde themselves. Next week, isn’t it?
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Yep , next week.
Seems like the worldwide ban should come out in a day or two though. Valverde’s 2nd at P-N is his swan song. But I have a weird question. So Valverde’s Italian ban started last year so it only has a year to run-till next May. Does that mean he would get to ride in Italy and no where else after May of 2011?
...and the italian races would all start in Monacco or cross border to get around that...
by JustJoshinYa on Mar 16, 2010 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
The other possibility is to extend the ban retroactively
and take away all his results since last May.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Given his enthusiasm for lawyering up
and the fact that he probably earned in the last couple of years around ten times what Floyd spent on his lawyers I don’t expect the UCI to do any more than what the book allows them to. Which probably means that all they can do is extend the Italian ban worldwide until next May. The nearest equivalent I can think of is the Bubnenkova case which (as CQ so nicely puts it):
Svetlana Bubnenkova tested positive for the use of EPO in the Tour de Limousin 2006. In June 2007 she was suspended for 2 years by the AFLD (Agence Française de Lutte contre le Dopage). Later the UCI adopted this suspension. Because of a miscommunication Bubnenkova continued to race in 2007. At the end of 2007 the UCI disqualified Bubnenkova in all races she started between June and September 2007.
But as there is no handy “miscommunication” here there are probably no grounds for backdating it and stripping his results for the past year. Piti.
There are other precedents for stripping results retroactively.
I have to leave now, but I can dig one up for you later if you like. The case that comes to mind might be Australian?
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Hilton McMurdo
His positive for steroid use dated to May 2007, but he competed until that November. Not only were his results between May and November wiped, but the suspension was dated from the last date of competition, so he wasn’t eligible to return until November 2009.
But I don’t think the UCI was involved in this one—it was the Australian federation that stripped the results. Link.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Italy is included in the world isn't it?
you never know with those Italians, they may be martians.
Proud member of Thuggetz nation.
This week
According to another press release from today, it’s 18-21 March.
Staring at the swim team gets you killed by a gang of dancing ninja men who know how to twirl.
by TheFigurehead on Mar 16, 2010 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but I'm lazy.
It was much easier to ask the question and wait .02 seconds for an answer.
"Woof, woof, woof! That's my other dog imitation."
must be exhausting
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
You can see where this goes
He fixes the cable?
"The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is." Edvald Boasson Hagen
by Chris Fontecchio on Mar 16, 2010 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Bah Chrome.
It forgets to refresh itself all the time.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Yup. That's why I switched.
Still looking for the perfect browser…
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
You might as well go on the quest for the Holy Grail...
by Christopher See on Mar 16, 2010 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Sad
I know I’m probably in the minority here but I for one had hoped to see Valverde ride the Tour later this year. :(
Blame the spanish federation
If they had just gone after him in time, he would have served his ban by now.
At this point I won’t believe he is banned worldwide until I see it.
I think the UCI is going to need six to nine months to figure out what to do...
…about the absurd position it’s got itself into now.
They don’t think fast at the UCI.
i think he means
the italy and world bans not being concurrent.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
It's the Spanish Federation
as Jens rightly says, that’s got us here. I’m not all that sure, for once, what the UCI could have done?
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
Exactly. If they had extended CONI's ban and Valverde's appeal had been successful, that would be the absurd position.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Even if hes not banned by the time of the Tour
using the theory that they’ll need time to sort this out, the chances of him riding the Tour are pretty much gone now.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
…to inquire into Puerto.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
+1
'When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning' - Dr. Reiner Knizia
by bought with blood on Mar 16, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
so, do people think this will be the last puerto ban?
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
CONI got other samples from the blood bags
and their jurisdiction over cyclists from other federations has now been established. Not impossible they have others in the works—I think there have been rumors to that effect, anyway.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
All forty-odd of them
will we start to see lots of spontaneous confessions?
Confessions?
I bet not. Given the possible riders involved, I’m guessing expensive lawyers will be the order of the day.
that's the way i'm leaning too
the fun never stops. i just hope it does not take too much time/resources away from current anti doping efforts.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Ha!
The fun never stops. That Torri is a fun-loving dude.
Yeah, I think they’ve got more of these things in the works. I’m curious to see who’s next, really.
The list
is growing shorter though. That thing is five years old, and a lot of the names are gone.
"The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is." Edvald Boasson Hagen
by Chris Fontecchio on Mar 16, 2010 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
no, im looking for some more
thats me being wishful, even if some of my fav riders may get caught by the truth police, ill be happy if they purge that cases contents in any way shape or form thats even just barely legal.
Perhaps a stupid question, but...
…didn’t Valverde argue that the Italians had no jurisdiction over him? He didn’t argue that it wasn’t his blood, right?
more or less, from what i understand
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Once the DNA match was established, he didn't deny it was his blood.
Although he (a) claimed it was leftover from when Fuentes’ sister was his team doctor (why she would have extracted a whole bag of blood was left unexplained), and (b) expressed puzzlement at how the EPO could have gotten into it.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
OK, thanks all...
So, he cheated, and bitches about who caught him – but bottom line is he was caught.
I think he should get a lifetime ban to send a message. Since the rules are being written while this is moving forward…the excuse itself is worthy of punishment.
by JustJoshinYa on Mar 16, 2010 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
hmmm
Thing is (& this is devil’s advocate stuff), finding EPO in a bag of someone’s blood isn’t altogether the same as finding EPO in someone’s blood. At the very most, it – with other evidence – might be taken as “intention to dope” a la Basso. At least, if I were his lawyer that’s what I’d argue.
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
Either way, it's a 2-year ban.
No grounds for a lifetime ban under the current rules—and they can’t be rewritten to apply retroactively.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
yeah, I know...
…speaking emotionally about a lifetime. It’s tiring to hear of this behavior and more tiring to think how long it takes to find out the “truthe” which we will really likely only REALLY know when they come clean as a DS sometime 20 years further on as they coach the next generation of “transparent and clean competitors”…cough, cough.
by JustJoshinYa on Mar 16, 2010 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
So many riders from that period are probably bannable
You have riders like Frank Schleck who was known to have deposited money in bank accounts linked to Fuentes, yet despite that glaring piece of circumstantial evidence very little effort was made by any of the federations to investigate the matter.
So far, I don't think any federation has ever moved on a case where there was no direct physical evidence.
As in, positive test or blood match. Documents, bank transfers, even video evidence—to the best of my knowledge, none of that has been sufficient for a ban. If anyone knows of a case, I’m interested .
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Pretty certain you're correct there
The Scarponi case is the only one where I don’t recall the details of the evidence, but I’m fairly certain they had a blood bag for zapatero. Birillo, they certainly did.
They had some ridiculous number of samples from the evidence in Madrid. The Italians, I mean. So the list of possible cases could be quite lenghty, depending on how much in the way of resources the Italians want to devote to chasing this thing.
I think the Lux did what they could
and held hearings but without physical evidence beyond the bankdeposits there was little they could do. If the spanish had released the blood they could try and match. It might still happen. As majope says ,Coni has more samples than Piti’s and might now go ahead with those cases?
I'd agree with that one.
I don’t think there was too much they could do in the Schleck case as it stood then. The Italians may have something different to say about this, of course.
And of course a DNA matched blood bag
would give rise to all sorts of perjury related charges, after all didn’t he say that he’d had no contact at all apart from sending money for “training plans”
I'm very sorry...I'm going to through this out there...
‘witch hunt’
BAH!!!!....Cavendish?! Double BAH!!! Sky!!
TLP 7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent
"Witch hunt" implies...
The persecution of people who are not guilty. So I don’t think it applies here.
Cycling will always be a beautiful sport no matter how many people disgrace it.--Christian Vande Velde
Can't we just offer amnesty to anyone who doped prior to 2008? (pre-passport)
Certainly wouldn’t be a fair resolution in the eyes of people who served time like Basso and Rasmussen but that entire period is tainted, the problem was systemic, so catching a few prominent riders and making an example of them hardly seems fair. Think of how many riders probably got off scott free.
That should have been done back then.
Now is too late and there won’t be that many more cases like this in cycling for pre 2008 stuff.
There aren’t that many old samples.
I'd say yes with a restriction:
amnesty if you describe your support system.
and as ted argues elsewhere: ban any ds or manager with more than 3 riders testing positive in a 2 year period.
Otherwise, lifetime bans for riders AND their ds’s.
Further . . . it would be helpful to have some precise legal clarification about the nature of participation in sport: is this activity to be held as precisely equal to other sorts of vocational activity, or does it differ in ways that make EU employment laws not precisely applicable?
Still further: The riders need a REAL union. As it stands now, most are ‘disposable heroes.’
Yet still further: testing protocols must be standardised.
Agree fully with all of this...
…except the lifetime bans thing. I’m generally opposed to them—especially since they bring us back to this great big judicial mess that costs insane amounts of money, delays things forever, and generally distorts everything in ways the Valverde case has to be emblematic of by now.
I think quickly applied sporting penalties for any positive control is the way to go. You dope, you get caught according to the standard protocols, you get relegated, lose your prize money, and get egg on your face. Plus we’ll test you more, and make your life an unutterable pain in the ass. Oh, and this applies to your whole team. Sure, you can keep doing it, but the diminishing returns + probable loss of sponsorship / loss of riders who don’t want to deal with the bs will make it very unpleasant very fast. Bad coaches won’t last in a system like this because they won’t be able to produce successful results or put new riders in a position to succeed. Further, none of this requires a big ‘court case’ every time something happens. None of it requires life bans. And if you do it right, you’ll get the riders and the coaches policing one another’s behavior, rather than trying to protect one another. Also, you can do this to at least some real extent at the lower levels.
I do really agree that digging out the support systems, especially since many of them infect the junior level and above, is critical. Further, none of this obviates applicable criminal law where the substances in question are not just the objects of sporting bans, but also the objects of medical restrictions / applicable drug laws. In those cases, you refer it to the police / medical authorities and send the dealers and the physicians practicing outside of the rules of their profession right down the river where they belong. But that’s a separate issue and one that should never be in the hands of a sporting federation anyhow.
What makes you think there won't be a big court case when the winner of the TdF is relegated?
That’s my main problem , I don’t see why the process would be more swift? You will still have the same challenging of the results and the appeals won’t you?
Do you in say, football, when penalties are applied?
Not really. Sometimes they say sorry we got it wrong, but that’s how it seemed. You don’t get it when relegations happen now for say, irregular sprinting.
I think if the penalty applies purely to this competition, it takes some of the wind out of things. But you may have a point that the analogy isn’t there.
Oh, god
We’re all so bunkered down, even in 2010, waiting for the Tour to go up in flames..
Is Sagan too old to go through that youth testing that Lemond wants? Has he been recently seen in Meixco or Kona?
Hamilton and Valverde f’-in both stole Liege.
by rubesANdbabes on Mar 16, 2010 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
that's why the part about employment law is crucial
if sport in some way differs from other sorts of financially-compensated activities, then the lifetime ban isn’t so big a deal.
It would be a lifetime ban from being a professional cyclist, ds, or manager. If, as is currently the case, Raimundas Rumsas wants to harvest euros from the Italian gran fondo circuit, or if zombie-VDB wants to kick butt on the kermesse circuit, or if Kayle Leogrande wants to come back as an amateur and crash every year in the last lap of the elite w/o contract Downer’s Grove—whatever.
But the prospect of lifetime bans—instead of two year ‘time-outs’—might have a way of providing just the disincentive you want. And note, this would be primarily an economic, not moral sanction.
The problem is that I don't think it is different.
Which is part of why I’m really resistant to life bans. I also think college athletes at big-time university programs should get paid. If the university is making a substantial profit on your labor, you should be compensated. And I don’t think ‘free education’ covers it, especially since the sports often get in the way of the education to a very considerable degree (and I say this as a university prof.).
On a positive note (no pun intended and in reference to the above comments regardiing 'infection of juniors'
Our last two races, which were also the first two of the year…the 1,2,4,and 8 placed juniors were tested by the AFLD…
There has been suggestions in the past that ‘doping’ of some sort is endemic in the upper junior European levels….
I could try to dig out the reference, if memory serves it was in VeloMagazine (French)
BAH!!!!....Cavendish?! Double BAH!!! Sky!!
TLP 7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent
good thing, if they [AFLD] keep up through the season....
otherwise why bother…
BAH!!!!....Cavendish?! Double BAH!!! Sky!!
TLP 7.0 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent
by bradBordeaux on Mar 16, 2010 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Very good thing...
…if this isn’t stopped at the junior level, where often the athletes have no idea what they’re being given, then the problem will persist everywhere else.
Valverde is appealling to the Swiss Federal Court
“1. We considered that one of the judges was not impartial, having worked for the World Anti-Doping Agency. The partiality of this judge is being analyzed by Switzerland’s Federal Tribunal, which is due to make a decision in this respect.
“If the Swiss Federal Tribunal considers this judge is partial, today’s CAS decision will be meaningless. The impartiality of the judges if a necessary condition for a fair hearing.
“2. (CAS) does not have the authority to consider a decision of the Spanish judicial system to be illegal.”
“3. The decision by (CAS) clearly breaches the fundamental rights of the racer, above all the right to a fair hearing and the right to privacy.
“The lack of impartiality of this panel of judges and the clear breaches of fundamental rights have provoked us to not accept this decision and as a result we will proceed to place an appeal with the Swiss Federal Court/Tribunal.”
(From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/16/AR2010031601745.html )
ah . . . the tyler hamilton playbook
Anyone wanna go in on some “Have pity for piti” t-shirts with me?
not a bad idea
i got $10 on that.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
har!
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
oh the old privacy
favourite of tennis players & footballers, who don’t want to give their whereabouts to the anti-doping authorities but are happy enough to splashed all over the tabloid press
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
I find Valverde so nauseating that it's hard to have the least bit of sympathy for him...
…and most of these arguments just seem like such transparent technical bs as to make you want to hurl.
But then there’s brad’s ‘witch hunt’ point. If I was one of the very few people actually getting popped for my involvement in a very wide-spread scheme, and I was looking at a ton of others in the peloton with me going on their merry way, I’d be pissed too.
That said, the guy makes my skin crawl, and this isn’t helping.
But he's not
Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi…granted there are many more that haven’t been ‘popped’, but piti is hardly the only one getting nailed to the stake.
"Today I was honked at...I caught up and made a great honking noise back...he caught up and said I'm gonna punch you in the face...I laughed."
~DZ
One of the few...
…is my point. Or at least the one thing that always makes me a little uncomfy about the continuing saga of Puerto. There comes a point where it’s just taking too damn long.
That said, he’s contributed to the bs-factor here enormously with all the fairly obviously silly appeals. If you can’t even deny that you were in violation of the rules, your argument about how nobody should have been able to prove that, even though they did, just rings enormously hollow. And ‘rights’ talk at that point becomes laughable. This is where the spoiled rich athlete getting caught for doping really takes on a different moral value than the striving poor kid. Ugh.
It wouldn't be a witch hunt on a select few
if just the fucking fuckety fuck fuck fuckadoodeldodiddelydoo spanish federation(and higher sporting authorities) had done it’s job to begin with now would it.
If any of the witches feel mistreated they should file their complaints with the spanish minister of sports as far as I’m concerned.
UCI's press release added above
Short version: ‘Oh yes, we will extend it worldwide.’
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
This ruling is total BS
Undermines what little credibility any of the federations/UCI had left. Why not revisit every case in the last ten years and ban them retroactively?
Until Armstrong is suspended for his name being tied in with Michele Ferrari and the books of ‘almost -proof’ they have against that snake, I’m not going to feel good about any of these “well, we ALMOST have proof that he cheated in competition” rulings.
Like I’ve said before. Big Business makes the Law and money makes the verdict.
Dude..
We know for years he cheated.. He kept quiet making the sport unbelievable.. It was, look the guy who doped can ride here.. I think it’s a fair punishment if they get him the ban..
So before he was convicted you didn’t know? That’s not what you said. You said: "We’ve known for years….so you have some proof outside of the conviction?
We have known for years that this was Valverde's blood.
We’ve known for more than a year based on DNA evidence that even he isn’t disputing.
Manzano testimony on how the Kelme team including Valv.Piti at the Vuelta
came down to dinner with testosterone patches on their legs and they were almost caught at dinner and had to be hustled to another room.
by Vlaanderen90 on Mar 16, 2010 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s exactly my point, that’s how it will be interpreted which is BS. It’s ok if you admit your bias, I’m more than happy to admit mine in this argument.
How many of you believe, or got sucked into believing Landis was “framed”
Yeah…..sure!
Do you even understand the rule he broke?
It’s a blood doping rule. The EPO was pure bonus. Storing bags of a riders blood is doping. Period.
Yes, I understand the rule
and my problem is with that rule. Other rides seem to appeal the grounds of a positive suspension based on questionable handling.
Let me ask you this.
What’s that cheating American Zirble defense?
Questionable handling doesn't change DNA profiles.
It’s his blood. That’s all that matters here. Not even Valv.piti, who will apparently dispute anything, disputes that.
Zirbel, Landis, and every other case you can think of is irrelevant here.
How is it irrelevant? If you have a judging system, the system needs to be consistent correct?
You think it wasn’t Zirbel’s blood, or Landis’ or Simoni’s that they took out of THEIR bodies?
If you lack consistency in your dealings, you lack credibility. Then noone believes in the system of punishment. Then noone believes in the rules, the sport. This is another example of cycling losing it’s credibility.
Because, for the fifth time, landis, zirbel etc were not convicted of blood doping.
Totally different evidentiary and procedural problem. Not relevant.
It’s the same end result, you and I both know that’s BS. You telling me there is no possibility at all, none what-so-ever that the blood bag could contain EPO and Valverde’s name without him knowing it? Absolutely NO possibility? I don’t think so.
Oh my god. Dude!
THE EPO IS NOT THE PROBLEM. EVEN IF THERE WAS NO EPO, HE’D STILL BE BANNED.
Is that clear yet?
If I were his lawyer I'd use that defence as I said above.
But you still have the problem of what the hell is he doing leaving bags of his blood with doctors? It’s not like, say, a little sample that might get stored, it’s a bag of blood that would have to be taken with your permission. The only real purpose of doping that would be autologous transfusion. That means “intention to dope”, even if you can’t actuallty demonstrate it was ever put back in his veins again.
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
doing that
Never could type. Or for that matter, read.
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
My point is the “he” ^. How do we know this “he” is a knowing Valverde? The Kelme team was systematically doing all sorts of sh*t with their riders, Manzano has said so. So how can anyone proove that Valverde 1. was getting any performance advantage 2. actually knew of this Blood 3. actually consented to HIS blood being stored.
It’s possible all of this was going on behind his back. You telling me that a second year pro couldn’t have blood taken by a team of professional doctors and naively move along? “This is just how it is done on our team”
so they drew bags of blood from him
w/out his consent and/or knowledge?
Explain how it’s possible to draw enormous quantities of blood without his awareness.
And . . . even if that is the case, ignorance of the law is not an excuse . ..
ignorance of the law is not an excuse
Certainly it IS. This is my whole point. This is ultimately what all the riders claim. Ignorance of the law.
Dekker claimed ignorance of the LAW?
Really? He said he didn’t know that the thing he was doing was banned? I don’t recall any such thing.
because he didn't
The Dutch cyclist originally denied using performance-enhancing substances, but confessed after his B sample also proved positive, saying that he had used EPO once – although the abnormal data in his biological passport contradict that – and that it had been "a mistake" but he was nevertheless sacked by Silence-Lotto.
http://road.cc/content/news/15316-two-year-doping-ban-thomas-dekker
There are video interviews as well.
Dekker claimed ignorance of the process of the law. He seemed to believe that he could get a reduced suspension for testing out of competition did he not?
Got a link for that?
I don’t recall ever seeing that claim. And it would be quite odd for him to make it, since the rules are very clear on that issue.
so why are you citing it again?
If it doesn’t make him not guilty, why is it relevant? Also, didn’t you claim it did make him not guilty?
What, so if he believed it was true
they should then make it true for him?
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
No…I couldn’t care about Dekker. Someone asked for an example. That was the most recent I could think of. It’s not related anyway. It was jsut to the point that riders obviously are not always aware of all the laws.
He did tell (Sporza?)just last week
that he was surprised to get the full sentence given the test was in Dec. and others popped in races had gotten more lenient yada yada yada,…….
Exactly, you all know he did in his comments about Ricco. This means that the riders don’t have the anti-doping handbook in their nighttables and obviously don’t know the details of the laws. They are often ignorant of the laws and try to use this defense/plea all the time.
I don’t agree with all of Lawrence’s arguments, and it’s true that ignorance of the law can’t be used as an excuse for breaking the law. Still, I find that to a certain degree I agree with the spirit of his comments – i.e., punishing the guys higher up rather than the riders. I mean, isn’t that what a lot of the people arguing against Lawrence in this thread are arguing for in fmk’s thread?
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
sure, look below at his 10:30 am comment for example, “you’re a pro-rider whose job is on the line, in an era when everyone was doping and a doctor takes a bag of blood (which you can give, the same amount very easily at your local hospital) they can make any reason logical.” Just seems very similar to the arguments in favour of leniency towards riders in the fmk thread, parallels to “boosters”/manipulators in college athletics in the US…
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Only he is American….and Valverde is Spanish and we all know that the Spanish lie, cheat and steal their way to the top right? Forget that.
It’s getting hard to see who’s responding to who…but Lawrence, I think you’re wrong if you’re saying the people arguing against you here are simply arguing on the basis of nationalism – the same people in here came down pretty hard on Hamilton last year, for example.
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
eh, except why would you let anyone take that much blood.
We’re not talking about a small vial for medical tests here.
The other arguments, and I assume you mean mine, weren’t so much for ‘leniency’ as for a different regime that’s both more timely and a bit less harsh against individuals, but more aimed at altering the system. I do feel for the ones who, as children in many cases, get drawn in by preparatores or coaches who turn a blind eye to preparatores, and sort of put through a system before they’re really in a position to be expected to exert a lot of control on their own. But there’s no reason to think that Valv or any higher level pro is really in the same situation at all. These guys can very reasonably be expected to take some responsibility. So I really don’t see the parallels.
Well, I know that if someone were taking blood from me, I probably wouldn’t immediately know if it was “lots” or “only a little,” not only because I’m completely ignorant of all things medical, but because the person could tell me he needed enough blood for several samples, or whatever. I’d be freaked out enough at the sight of blood to not be thinking straight, that’s for sure. ;)
As for the distinction between kids and upper-level guys, well, don’t get me wrong, like I said above, it’s true that at a certain point you have to take responsibility. But then what’s the dividing line between the kids and the upper-level guys? Isn’t the 25-yr-old star the same guy whose judgment has been impaired by being caught up in this weird and manipulative system since he was 14? Anyways, I’m not putting forth concrete proposals, just saying I’m sympathetic to that part of Lawrence’s argument that concerns wanting to avoid throwing the book at one dude without taking on the higher-ups, or looking at context.
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
throwing the book at one dude
is easy to say when it’s the first one. let’s see where it goes from here before saying valv was made and example of/it was a witch hunt…
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Replying to pliny (not sure where it will land):
Well, I know that if someone were taking blood from me, I probably wouldn’t immediately know if it was "lots" or "only a little,"
I’ve donated blood many times, for which they take a pint. It takes quite a while, so no one could mistake the loss of a full blood bag for a little bit for tests.
It also wipes you out. It’s a lot of blood to lose at once. Effects vary, but people frequently feel dizzy and weak—I tried running once a few hours after giving blood and just about passed out.
The body replaces the blood volume within 24 hours, but it takes weeks to replace the lost red blood cells (EPO would certainly speed that up, of course). Fewer red blood cells means less oxygen-carrying capacity in the short term, so I don’t think an athlete would be likely to give a pint of blood lightly. And you certainly couldn’t sneak it out of them without them knowing.
It's fun to beat Cancellara--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Hey, thanks for this. Yeah, I’ve given blood too, and I know what you mean about the dizziness. And the thing is, these guys are tested all the time, so if anyone’s familiar with the process it’s them. My point is just that it’s an easy situation to manipulate: you’re told you’ll have to give just a bit more blood today…or you aren’t told, and realize once it’s done…or you’re so freaked out by the medical surroundings that you don’t notice, or barely notice (this would be my case, hehe). Or, simply, the doctor – this guy you’ve been taught to look up to since you were a kid – says “this is how it’s going to be,” and you acquiesce.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to claim innocence for Valverde, just trying to understand the context as well as possible, explore all sides of the argument, etc.
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
i think suspicion should have entered the picture
when he was told to go see a gynecologist (isn’t that what fuentes is, or is that ferrari?). granted i hang around a good amount of people from the medical professions, but…
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
A full blood bag is a pint. I’ve giving blood as well. Do I know where it went? Do you? Do you know what was done with it? No, you presume.
AND if you’re ordered to give it by your team? Like you said, that blood is back in less than a week, so it could be taken at training camp and then bam, it’s back. Simple.
From what I’ve read in the press Valverde’s blood is from 03/04 (when he was with Kelme) others say it’s from 2006, well that is possible if he just gave it, but the raids where in March in 2006…so it would have to be pretty much at the same time.
As well, the DNA tests I thought proved that the blood was from before he even had his dog, and that was part of their defense, that he didn’t have a dog named Piti at the time that blood was taken. Which confirms the 03/04.
It also is why Manzano is involved because it’s from Kelme days. You telling me they couldn’t get a pint of blood out of his arm and do who knows what with it? It takes 3 minutes, and if he refused he’d been fired.
i'm not saying you can't get a pint out of someone
want a pint? i can get you a pint.
but if that were the case (that valv.piti is all innocent), use it as you defense. and give me a good reason why someone would want to store that blood if there was no intent to dope.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Questions about the dividing line...
…don’t eliminate the point that there should be one, or that someone like Valv fairly clearly falls on the other side of it.
As for taking a pint. You’d know (as you point out below) and if you’re an athlete subject to a ban on autologous blood doping, you’d never give that much. To do so would put you in violation. If you needed it for surgery or something, you’d probably get a TUE to do so. The arguments that this could have happened all innocently are specious.
what, Thomas?
Hasn’t he admitted it using the “injured & stupid” defence?
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
Nah, no way
Dekker admitted that he’d made a mistake, and claimed that he’d only doped once. Can’t say I buy that assertion, but he did admit that he was wrong. That’s hardly ignorance.
find the relevant clause in WADA
and then go ask Scott Moninger what he thinks of yoru assertion.
I think it’s time to post the Black Knight clip from Holy Grail . . .
i take it he's on your vds team? ;)
but really, kinda hard to take a bag of blood without him knowing, isn’t it?
So, what? They knocked him out with an high dose of EPO...
…then secretly took away his blood and stored it where they knew the spanish federation, which wasn’t going to prosecute, would find it, because they eventually knew the italians would prosecute?
black helicopter stuff
Next we’ll need tin foil hats.
by Christopher See on Mar 16, 2010 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
PS that was supposed to be a funny not a jab..
by Christopher See on Mar 16, 2010 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
That's good 'cause some folks might miss it
and then we have anew pissing contest…
THe idea of MIB tranq’ing riders and stealing their blood is too funny to pass on.
by Christopher See on Mar 16, 2010 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Look, you can make fun all you want, but when guys like Landis say it’s because they were drinking whiskey (I know, different situation) and Hamilton saying it was his unborn fetus ( I KNOW, different situation), there is precedent that the law needs to go through the appropriate process to prove/disprove even the most silly claims.
Cocaine in candy? BULLSH*T and in this case Simoni IS one of my favorite rides AND he is on my VDS team no matter HOW dumb it is.
The fact is, Valverde is in a situation were the law has been broken, his blood has been stored. BUT, noone here or otherwise can prove he ever 1. used it, 2. knew of it, 3.wouldn’t have lost his job if he didn’t give blood to Kelme 4. has anytime in the last 6 years been involved in anything remotely illegal (this blood is from ‘03-’04 if I’m not mistaken.
No matter how silly that is…it ain’t an unborn brother in his stomach. (which I know didn’t fly.)
Really not likely they could take a whole bag of blood & him not be aware.
I think he would have to prove as his defence that he didn’t know about it or that Kelme forced him, not vice versa. In fact, if that’s the case, why isn’t he using that defence?
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
It’s not illegal to take blood is it? In any way, as a doctor? It’s illegal to store blood no? Could Valverde not know they were storing it?
Huh? I don’t think that’s correct. I’m pretty sure a registered doctor can take blood from an atheletes body and it is not illegal. It’s only illegal to store it, or take it outside of a medical facility is it not? That is why France recently changed the law.
Except that there's no reason...
…to take that much blood except to store it.
So no.
That doesn’t matter. Because, EXCEPT that…
just proves that it’s possible. You can say “so no” all you want, but when you’re a pro-rider whose job is on the line, in an era when everyone was doping and a doctor takes a bag of blood (which you can give, the same amount very easily at your local hospital) they can make any reason logical.
But here's the thing...
…it doesn’t matter what Valverde’s ‘intent’ was in the volitional sense of the term.
The existence of the stored blood is the violation. The existence of the stored blood, however it got stored and by whoever’s authority, proves what the rules call ‘intent to dope,’ which is a violation. Intent here is not being used in the sense of referring to the state of Valv.piti’s will, but to a configuration of objective circumstances that are consistent with using the materials in question for the purposes of doping. And setting up that configuration of circumstances is illegal and something the rider is held responsible for. All of this is in the rules, clearly stated. So any athlete who allows that much blood to be drawn is responsible for what gets done with it later. Period. There is no ambiguity about this whatsoever.
Right, except that all of this argument was presented in Spanish courts, they ruled the case closed. So why it was the Italians right to prusue it further is crazy, because the argument I have was dealt with by Spain. Now, CAS is saying CONI was ok to do that, which is just crap and it’s going to start a whole HUGE mess of riders being pardoned in one place and then puniched in another. Which is why I said this ruling is crap.
The Italians busted him
because he rode in Italy during the period he had stored blood. Presumably other nations where he rode could bring charges too. Different countries, different laws.
I know that. But, the stored blood was from a different time, and the stored blood had been ruled on. The case was closed. The Italians didn’t have different stored blood or I wouldn’t have a problem with any of this.
Where the blood was stored makes no difference
No Spanish laws were apparently broken. But he cheated when he rode in Italy and did break Italian laws.
the italians are not the spanish
just because someone’s buddy tells you that the someone in question didn’t do x, does not mean you have to listen to them, unless the buddy is your superior.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
However there are different reasons to store blood.
Non Athlete people can have bags of blood drawn and stored for future emergency use. This ensures available clean matching blood. this could have been explained to a young rider in such a way.
Not agreeing with the Piti is innocent crowd but all of these are things that courts and lawyers and judges and juries are around for.
And also the reason why some criminals are never prosecuted and some innocent people go to jail.
'When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning' - Dr. Reiner Knizia
by bought with blood on Mar 16, 2010 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
But again
that’s a hypothetical argument. If they believe that’s what happened, or that it’s a legitimate defence, why aren’t Valverde & his lawyers using it? The onus is on them to demonstrate that aspect of their defence if they think it’s valid, rather than on us to say no rider should be sanctioned because it might have been the case (even when no one connected with the case has used that argument at all, as far as I know).
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
I’m back….oh no. They did that in Spain. The blood which the Italians got their hands on is the blood from Puerto (evidence in a case that has been closed).
The blood the Italians have is clean, it just has his DNA, which happens to match the DNA in the Puerto blood. Except Valverde disputes this.
I know it’s easy to black-ball atheletes, but in what judicial system does this other non-sense become acceptable? You can arguably illegally acquire evidence from a closed case and use it in order to punish someone according to your laws, in your country? because you don’t have evidence on him of your own?
That’s totally dodgy. If Valverde was positive when they tested his blood in the TDF, there would be no debate, but he wasn’t…so they went to Puerto.
i think it's illegally obtained..
only as far as spain is concerned. spain has no jurisdiction in italy. therefore the italians argue it’s legal. CAS agrees.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
No, the Puerto blood was illegally obtained. All that evidence was in the hands of Spanish court. It wasn’t given to the Italians in a manner that met Spanish law, and it wasn’t approved by the Spanish court. For all intents and purposes it was ‘mishandled’ or ‘stolen’
The Italians got it perfectly legally
And the only hint of timing being crucial I’ve seen is a suggestion somewhere that Serrano himself tipped them off on when he was going on holiday. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant, the Italians obtained it through the standard international judicial channels with no restrictions on how it should be used.
Monty's right.
No laws were broken in the course of obtaining this evidence. Valv.piti can whine all he wants, but the facts don’t support the whining.
Do you have a link for that?, because I read that the Spanish judge overseeing the case claimed the opposite and he said it needed to be approved by him that the blood be let out. I can find the article later tonight.
i think one judge was against it
apparently doing anything he can, (start conspiracy theory) probably under orders from the minister for sports or someone of the sort, to keep his athletes looking clean. (end conspiracy) he goes on vacation, someone who wasn’t bought out takes control of the case, and sends the evidence to italy.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Different judges
often make different rulings. In all jurisdictions.
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
if you're relying on process
as a defence, then you have to accept adverse consequences of that same process. (see, also, HCR.)
not at all
i have a big problem with the judge not releasing the info based on (allegedly) pressure from higher ups. what the interim judge did is fine with me. if one judge’s decision is legal, then so is the other (given the assumption that they were both ruling on the same thing)
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
No athlete subject to a ban on autologous blood doping...
…gives a pint of blood innocently. Period. That’s what the ban means. And believe me, any athlete subject to such ban knows it, or at least is responsible for knowing it and abiding by the rule.
I would not assume the Valv-Piti blood is from '03-'04
just because that’s when he rode for Kelme. Fuentes was an independent contractor, dealing with riders from a variety of teams. If he worked with Basso and Hamilton while they were on CSC and Ullrich while he was on T-Mob, there’s no reason he couldn’t have worked with Valverde in 2006.
It seems much more likely that the Valv-Piti blood bags are from 2006. Why would Fuentes hang on to three-year-old blood from a rider who was no longer a client?
by Susie Hartigan on Mar 16, 2010 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Or he was planning to make a giant statue
a la Marc Quinn. Or he was learning Ecky Thump
Ecky Thump
is the world’s premier martial art
“the law needs to go through the appropriate process to prove/disprove even the most silly claims.”
not really. the process needs to prove guilt. that is all. either way, if valv.piti wants to claim god sent his son down to turn water into vavlerde blood, and then some evil sideburned mafia came in the picture and added EPO to it, so be it, he can use that defense, but that is not what the CAS ruling was about. it was a matter of jurisdiction, and the process determined that valverde’s claim of no jurisdiction was not valid.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Yes, I know, but all of this was considered in Spanish court, everything I am arguing about, and it was dismissed. Why do you think Contador is still riding? and 65 or so other riders.
So, if Spanish court ruled against all of these claims, the Italy didn’t like it….well too bad. Spain didn’t seek out a ban against Simoni because they didn’t like the ruling. So it’s bullshit.
nah...
it was never considered in Spanish court. Because there were no laws in Spain against doping at the time of the investigation, the case was never tried on the basis of the evidence.
WHAT???? no laws against doping at the time? Excuse me? That’s news to me. So why did the Spanish have the entire Operation then? Ummm there were laws against doping at the time, just not the same laws, AND they are revising those laws, but that shouldn’t be Valverde’s problem.
You misunderstand my point, I think.
I’m going to move my answer down to the bottom, to get out of the gutter.
Hang on…
look at my comment above
just because someone dismisses it does not make it illegal for some other sovereign nation to have a problem with it.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
The cocaine in candy idea sounds like bullshit
and that’s what the Italians thought at first, but Simoni was quite methodical and scientific in the way he worked out how he had tested positive. No procedural crap whatsoever, just pure evidence.
Yes I know, and that’s what the Spanish did (or so we assume) which got the whole Spanish -led case closed in Spain.
no. it's not.
The Spanish case got closed in Spain b/c the offenses in question were not violations of spanish LAW at the time they were committed, irrespective of sporting rules.
Nah, the Spanish case died
because the judge couldn’t find any charges to bring, but at the same time wasn’t prepared to completely dismiss the case and hand everything over to the sporting authorities. It just sat there for years in case he might do something.
So which is it? Ed,, Monty? It was still closed, the law dealt with it, and it was done. Like it or not, it should have stayed that way.
The case on athletes doping was closed
because that was not a crime at the time in Spain. It was held open because they were contemplating making the case that the doctors were guilty of the crime of endangering public health through unsafe medical practises. So both are right
Spanish law closed the case
Italian law didn’t. If he hadn’t ridden in Italy at that time then CONI would have had no case. It’s like a nineteen year old getting busted for drinking alcohol in one of those US states where you can’t buy booze until you’re thirty. Claiming that it’s legal in your own country ain’t no defence.
Your example is backwards. He did not commit the foul in Italy, he committed it in Spain. The Italians matched the ‘fouled’ blood from Spain to theirs taken in Italy. The Italian blood was fine, but they “acquired” the Puerto blood, matched it and made their decision.
So, in your example a nineteen year old getting pulled over, being clean and then somehow, in some crazy way being compared to evidence in his home state would never ever happen. That’s why this is crazy.
He rode in Italy in 2006
he had a blood bag in 2006 (which also contained EPO). Where he actually drew, stored or reinjected the blood is irrelevant for the Italian authorities. He cheated in Italy.
Of course we don't know..
Nobody found the evidence but abse on reports we can assume he did that.. It’s like.. denying the moon landing.. Because. as normal person the evidence could be planted
the moon….whaaaatttt????
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Mar 16, 2010 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
But come on dude..
…the moon landing film was all in black and white. Totally proof that it was staged! If it had been real, it’d have been in color!
/snark
re Simoni and Cocaine
it ain’t bs, because it’s the truth:
Arguing with you on this stuff is largely pointless. But, I’m compelled, for some reason:
First, statute of limitations on these offenses is 8 years.
2010-8 = 2002. So, Manzano’s testimony about Valverde doping during the 02 and 03 Vuelta is relevant, as is evidence suggesting Valverde’s doping during the 02 or 03 Giro or any other races in Italy in which he competed—since doping in cycling was illegal in Italy at the time.
CONI is not trying to argue that Valverde is currently doping, or anything about his intent to use or not. They are arguing that raced WHILE DOPED in Italy, and they have argued multiple times (successfully) that they can prove this assertion.
I’m really not sure what your point is? That Valverde is actually non compos mentis and is sort of the Manchurian Campionissimo?