Valverde summoned by CONI

moray_gub

iainf72 wrote:

Before we all get too excited, AFAIK, there are no blood bags linked with either Contador or Schleck. #18 and Valv.Piti were always attributed to Valverde.

I think one or two posters in here need to calm down a bit and wait and see what comes out of this.

MG

off the back

MG - "I prefer to wait until all the evidence has been heard and officlai conclusions drawn ......."

Sure wait and log back in 10yrs and maybe the spanish will have investigated it. Facts remain there are no suprises here 4yr olds can work out what is going on!
Ulrich, Basso, Valverde, Jascke - no one has called blood bag wrong yet.

moray_gub

off the back wrote:

MG - "I prefer to wait until all the evidence has been heard and officlai conclusions drawn ......."

Sure wait and log back in 10yrs and maybe the spanish will have investigated it. Facts remain there are no suprises here 4yr olds can work out what is going on!
Ulrich, Basso, Valverde, Jascke - no one has called blood bag wrong yet.

If thats how it turns out then fine i wouldnt argue but he like yourself is entitled to the presumption of innocence or does that not apply in the cycling world ?

MG

teagar

Moray Gub wrote:

off the back wrote:

MG - "I prefer to wait until all the evidence has been heard and officlai conclusions drawn ......."

Sure wait and log back in 10yrs and maybe the spanish will have investigated it. Facts remain there are no suprises here 4yr olds can work out what is going on!
Ulrich, Basso, Valverde, Jascke - no one has called blood bag wrong yet.

If thats how it turns out then fine i wouldnt argue but he like yourself is entitled to the presumption of innocence or does that not apply in the cycling world ?

MG

When we see cyclists like Riis and Zabel who admit to doping despite being declared innocent by the doping tests etc, or by people like Basso who only get caught when the police rumble a fridge full of their blood I think it's safe to say that the whole "innocent untill proven guitly" goes out of the window. Innocent's a very relative term.

moray_gub

teagar wrote:

[


When we see cyclists like Riis and Zabel who admit to doping despite being declared innocent by the doping tests etc, or by people like Basso who only get caught when the police rumble a fridge full of their blood I think it's safe to say that the whole "innocent untill proven guitly" goes out of the window. Innocent's a very relative term.

all good and well but ya see under European employment law we are all entitled to the presumption of innocence in disciplinary matters and Valverde is entitled to that just like you and me fella.

MG

Kléber

Valverde has enjoyed the presumption of innocence, that's why he's been riding without a ban despite a pile of evidence linking him to this matter.

6288

it might explain his erratic tour performances ... drop a few places, stay out of the tester's reach for a bit ...

btw ... this is a theory used by the majority on here for a whole team ... so before anyoen says it is rubbish ...

calvjones

Does this mean Albert will never ride the Giro, or indeed in Italy again?

moray_gub

Kléber wrote:

Valverde has enjoyed the presumption of innocence, that's why he's been riding without a ban despite a pile of evidence linking him to this matter.

He may have enjoyed the POI out in the big bad world but where it really counts ie: in here he is as guilty as a guilty thing .

MG

moray_gub

6288 wrote:

it might explain his erratic tour performances ... drop a few places, stay out of the tester's reach for a bit ...

btw ... this is a theory used by the majority on here for a whole team ... so before anyoen says it is rubbish ...

Mmm dunno if you look at his GT record it always been a bit almost but not quite if you like some really good days followed by some right howlers. Last years tour was in keeping with that really.

MG

calvjones

Apart from the Vuelta where he was just beaten by a (probably) hugely doped Vino.

I certainly see Valv as someone who has been scared sh1tless by a near miss and is riding clean(er).

In some ways, it will be a pity (piti?) if he gets caught, especially if AC and others get away scot free, and especially if the blood bag was from his Kelme days. Not sure I'd want anyone seeking to stick the knife in for stuff I did when I was 21 (although I can think of a few ladies who might like to )

teagar

Moray Gub wrote:

teagar wrote:

[


When we see cyclists like Riis and Zabel who admit to doping despite being declared innocent by the doping tests etc, or by people like Basso who only get caught when the police rumble a fridge full of their blood I think it's safe to say that the whole "innocent untill proven guitly" goes out of the window. Innocent's a very relative term.

all good and well but ya see under European employment law we are all entitled to the presumption of innocence in disciplinary matters and Valverde is entitled to that just like you and me fella.

MG

Never said this was a legal matter?

Don't bring the law into it when it's not necessary. The reason we presume he is guilty like this is because of the issue i just raised. That is why we do not presume him innocent untill he is convicted. I'm not his employer, so my opnion has no legal obligation? Therefore, my opinion that he's red faced guilty has nothing to do with European legal law.

Silly billy.

skavanagh.bikeradar

The standard of evidence required in a pub or internet forum for discussion of press reports about probable doping links is less than that of National or European courts, so I'm happy with the links and presumptions based on what I've seen and read over the last 2 years or more.

moray_gub

teagar wrote:

Never said this was a legal matter?

Don't bring the law into it when it's not necessary. The reason we presume he is guilty like this is because of the issue i just raised. That is why we do not presume him innocent untill he is convicted. I'm not his employer, so my opnion has no legal obligation? Therefore, my opinion that he's red faced guilty has nothing to do with European legal law.

Silly billy.

Ignoring the somewhat childish and puerile insult of course its a legal matter between AV and CONI and his federation this was what i was meaning when i said he was entitled to the presumption of innocence. But now that you mention it your opinion and any statements you make in here are not immune from legal action if someone wanted to go down that road . Oh and while we are at it and do you think you could maybe desist from telling me what i can and cannot bring into a discussion.............theres a good chap


MG

off the back

MG - the central issue this whole affair highlights is not whether Valverde is guilty but the complete inability of spanish officials to dispense justice!!

We are long past the point where there is a case to answer for - so far gone that he is an embarassment to cycling governance and externals feds have taken up the reigns while the Spanish are in denial.

teagar

Moray Gub wrote:

teagar wrote:

Never said this was a legal matter?

Don't bring the law into it when it's not necessary. The reason we presume he is guilty like this is because of the issue i just raised. That is why we do not presume him innocent untill he is convicted. I'm not his employer, so my opnion has no legal obligation? Therefore, my opinion that he's red faced guilty has nothing to do with European legal law.

Silly billy.

Ignoring the somewhat childish and puerile insult of course its a legal matter between AV and CONI and his federation this was what i was meaning when i said he was entitled to the presumption of innocence. But now that you mention it your opinion and any statements you make in here are not immune from legal action if someone wanted to go down that road . Oh and while we are at it and do you think you could maybe desist from telling me what i can and cannot bring into a discussion.............theres a good chap


MG

My opinion may not be immune from legal action, but has nothing to do with European Employment law.

As far as I am aware, the original response I gave was to more or less a moral judgement on Valvarde - should we give him the benefit of innocence or not? Given the state of cycling, I said not. Then you brought in the European Employment Law? That might be relevant to Valvarde's participation in races untill the matter is solved, but it's less relevant to the issue of whether, as fans, we should give him the benefit of innocence or not.

As for telling you what not to bring into a discussion, I'll keep on giving my opinion on whether something is relevant or worthwhile to the discussion or not.

richard wants a baum

6288

it might explain his erratic tour performances ... drop a few places, stay out of the tester's reach for a bit ...

btw ... this is a theory used by the majority on here for a whole team ... so before anyoen says it is rubbish ...

funny how theres one rule for one rider and a completely different one for the rest :shock: . But i wont go there, Valv looks like his in trouble here, that or there trying to scare him into a confession (millar, basso) but that doesnt seem probable certainly its good news seeing as the headlines around the world will be yet another cyclist caught and conviently forget the 200 odd other sportsmen that Fuentes was taking money from :roll: .

iainf72

So who do we all reckon is next on the CONI list?

The 2 obvious ones who are linked to Puerto are Frank S and Fabian C. And they were both gave samples in Italy...

blazing_saddles

I wondered how they had got their hands on number 18, when the UCI and WADA hadn't. Here is the answer, according to the PC:-

How did CONI receive access to the Spanish evidence, and in particular blood bag #18?
Though the UCI and WADA have taken an interest in the Operation Puerto case, the two organizations never achieved access to the physical evidence in Spain. Marco Arpino of CONI explains: "The UCI, TAS, and WADA are private organizations, by contrast we are a public institution, a part of the State. We are therefore able to collaborate with Judge Serrano [the judge in charge of the Puerto case in Spain], working with seriousness, discretion, and reserve." Arpino explained that CONI has followed much the same procedure as they did with the Basso case, which involved a collaboration among Italian judicial authorities, CONI, and Interpol.

The Italian government made a formal request to the presiding judge in Spain to receive access to the evidence. Paolo Ferraro, the Attorney General of Rome, who is prosecuting the Oil for Drugs case, Interpol, and diplomats have all contributed to the case. "It is all the fruit of international legal commissions." The goal of the investigation is "total clarity" on the Operation Puerto case.

Interpol? I wonder if Richard hasn't got it right and they are trying to put the frighteners on Don A.

finchy

His hearing has been postponed until next Wednesday.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves20 ... ussee.html

Iainf72 - I never knew that Fabian Cancellara had been linked to Puerto. Who has accused him?

don key

johnfinch wrote:

His hearing has been postponed until next Wednesday.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves20 ... ussee.html

Iainf72 - I never knew that Fabian Cancellara had been linked to Puerto. Who has accused him?

Everyone with half a bicycle, it didn't say which half.

dave_1

cyclingfans anonymous suggests Serano went on a long Xmas holiday and the stand in judge released the DNA to CONI who are testing other riders blood from the Giro and TDF now...wonder if there will be other names to come...I hope not Contador...though it would not surprise

iainf72

johnfinch wrote:

Iainf72 - I never knew that Fabian Cancellara had been linked to Puerto. Who has accused him?

Some people say he's Clasicómano Luigi from the list. He was coached by Cecchini back then and huge chucks of his clients were involved.

leguape

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I wondered how they had got their hands on number 18, when the UCI and WADA hadn't. Here is the answer, according to the PC:-

How did CONI receive access to the Spanish evidence, and in particular blood bag #18?
Though the UCI and WADA have taken an interest in the Operation Puerto case, the two organizations never achieved access to the physical evidence in Spain. Marco Arpino of CONI explains: "The UCI, TAS, and WADA are private organizations, by contrast we are a public institution, a part of the State. We are therefore able to collaborate with Judge Serrano [the judge in charge of the Puerto case in Spain], working with seriousness, discretion, and reserve." Arpino explained that CONI has followed much the same procedure as they did with the Basso case, which involved a collaboration among Italian judicial authorities, CONI, and Interpol.

The Italian government made a formal request to the presiding judge in Spain to receive access to the evidence. Paolo Ferraro, the Attorney General of Rome, who is prosecuting the Oil for Drugs case, Interpol, and diplomats have all contributed to the case. "It is all the fruit of international legal commissions." The goal of the investigation is "total clarity" on the Operation Puerto case.

Interpol? I wonder if Richard hasn't got it right and they are trying to put the frighteners on Don A.

Interpol are facilitators for any supranational investigation and to ensure sharing of evidence. If the issue was being looked at in straightforward terms of fraud/deception then I imagine they'd be very interested in being involved. Notably they would also have an interest in the medical blackmarket side of things.

iainf72

The Italians have just started a criminal case against him in Rome. He's not appeared before CONI yet but they must be pretty sure. I think it's for sporting fraud.

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

The Italians have just started a criminal case against him in Rome. He's not appeared before CONI yet but they must be pretty sure. I think it's for sporting fraud.

Valverde hopefully will calculate it is best to take the ban...he's young enough to be back in 2 years time and win again...

Kléber

It's not going to be so simple. Was Valverde acting alone or did tea management know? If the team's biggest rider is busted, will the sponsor - a bank in a crisis - be willing to fund the team?

calvjones

Agree with Dave - as long as the blood is old (Kelme days) & he can claim he's been clean since joining Caisse.

Or he can claim Sainz/Fuentes kept him as an individual client post-Kelme & keep the team out of it..

dave_1

calvjones wrote:

Agree with Dave - as long as the blood is old (Kelme days) & he can claim he's been clean since joining Caisse.

Or he can claim Sainz/Fuentes kept him as an individual client post-Kelme & keep the team out of it..

yeah, he's not built on the 03 Vuelta form beyond the 05 TDF win at courchevel...his 07 TDF looked clean to me and his 08 TDF...strong but some off days. Kelme were a total doping outfit so, if Valv was there at 21-22. I think he will admit to something but deny doping since 03. I see he has the Caisse director escorting him to Italy today

Kléber

CONI are saying they have "another 90 bags of blood and not just those of cyclists", so expect some sudden withdrawals from tennis tournaments, new injuries for footballers and others...