Arrivederci Alejandro

iainf72

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Pinched from FVP:-
http://newcyclingpathways.blogspot.com/ ... -able.html
Thoughts?

Interesting. The most interesting one has to be

13. CONI only has power to prosecute foreigners for events that occurred outside of Italy after 2007. Even if this law covered the relevant events (i.e. from 2004) the retrospective extra territorial application of criminal laws is on general principles problematic constitutionally.

Kléber

Interesting. If the DNA does match but it's beyond the judicial reach of Italy then enormous pressure will fall on Spain from the UCI and WADA. Assume that the blood is a left over from the Kelme days and it's still within the 8 year statute and so he'll cop a ban. In other words, even if you adopt the most generous stance towards Valverde, he's still toast because of the DNA.

His only hope is that the Spanish authorities, whether judicial or sporting, sit on this and embarrass themselves further.

jimmythecuckoo

Is anyone surprised by all this?

Controversial I know, but will riders still be retrospectively judged 10 years after Puerto first reared its head?

The UCI must be able to take a lead here and say "Give us all the evidence and we will deal with those involved, or stop regurgitating the small pieces of information you will release and dragging this whole affair out".

Am I being too simplistic here?

iainf72

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Controversial I know, but will riders still be retrospectively judged 10 years after Puerto first reared its head?

No, statute of limitations is 8 years

winoneday

Even if he does get off this on a technicality and the Spanish authorities do decide to sit on it, which history tells us they are likely to, surely ASO will prevent him from riding their races. They prevented Boonen from riding the tour last year even though he didnt experience any ban per se. Surely this matter is a little more serious than Boonen being stupid. I know simply having one race organiser banning Valverde wouldn't be the greatest out come but it would be something and would pobably put pressure on RCS and may lead to further advances

iainf72

Valverde's sponsor is a big sponsor of ASO events. So they're bound to be careful before excluding him.

winoneday

How long are they likely to remain Valverde's sponsor, drugs make sponsors disappear just as quickly as they make the cyclists go.

jimmythecuckoo

iainf72 wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Controversial I know, but will riders still be retrospectively judged 10 years after Puerto first reared its head?

No, statute of limitations is 8 years

we are getting close then

Sirius631

afx237vi wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

He has close to 50 1st place finishes.

It doesn't matter. He'll keep them all. They can only strip you of a victory if you fail a test in-competition.

Vino never lost his Vuelta, Basso never lost his Giro.

But ASO stripped Riis of his tour, so there is precidence.

andyp

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

The UCI must be able to take a lead here and say "Give us all the evidence and we will deal with those involved, or stop regurgitating the small pieces of information you will release and dragging this whole affair out".

To be fair to the UCI, they have tried this route but the Spanish courts prevented them from accessing the evidence.

iainf72

Sirius631 wrote:

But ASO stripped Riis of his tour, so there is precidence.

They didn't strip him of it as they can't offically. And Riis admitted to doping his way to win it so they've taken his name off the list but he's still the winner

finchy

iainf72 wrote:

Interesting. The most interesting one has to be

13. CONI only has power to prosecute foreigners for events that occurred outside of Italy after 2007. Even if this law covered the relevant events (i.e. from 2004) the retrospective extra territorial application of criminal laws is on general principles problematic constitutionally.

But as this is only a sporting sanction rather than a criminal act, surely the Valverde case won't be affected?

frenchfighter

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Pinched from FVP:-
http://newcyclingpathways.blogspot.com/ ... -able.html
Thoughts?

Thanks for this - very interesting reading and it is nice to have information to balance the argument. People are so quick to jump on small pieces of news or even opinions, even unsupported by other things.

I have come to the conclusion that people hang on the doping in cycling because they are 'gossip-mongers' they like the 'exciting' snippets.

Maybe you should just watch the sport and let its superiority over any other sport inspire and excite you regardless of the few discrepencies.

drenkrom

frenchfighter wrote:

People are so quick to jump on small pieces of news or even opinions, even unsupported by other things.

You have heard of DNA, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fingerprinting

A DNA match is not a small piece of news. With it, the case against Valverde is arguably the most bombproof anti-doping case ever brought against a cyclist. This isn't an EPO test, this is a solid test that sends people to jail for their natural lives on a weekly basis without appeals. Lawyers will debate at length who had jurisdiction to do the testing, if the Italians should've had the Puerto blood in the first place, etc... but no one is denying where the blood came from. If they don't attack the test itself, they recognize that the blood in the Puerto bag was that of Valverde. Anything but a solid conviction will be a huge blunder for cycling, IMO.

ms_tree

frenchfighter wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Pinched from FVP:-
http://newcyclingpathways.blogspot.com/ ... -able.html
Thoughts?

Thanks for this - very interesting reading and it is nice to have information to balance the argument. People are so quick to jump on small pieces of news or even opinions, even unsupported by other things.

I have come to the conclusion that people hang on the doping in cycling because they are 'gossip-mongers' they like the 'exciting' snippets.

Maybe you should just watch the sport and let its superiority over any other sport inspire and excite you regardless of the few discrepencies.

Thought that link was interesting and gave food for thought. Like - if he knew he would be tested on that stage so he could have dropped out of the race for some reason but he didn't.