Latest on Valverde vs CAS
Just read a twitter message in last 10 mins from Gregor Brown:
"Alejandro Valverde banned from racing in Italy, says CAS, until May 2011".
Anyone else heard anything? I thought the hearing was only on Mar 18-21, (or is that the UCI and WADA vs Spanish Cycling Body case??)
"Alejandro Valverde banned from racing in Italy, says CAS, until May 2011".
Anyone else heard anything? I thought the hearing was only on Mar 18-21, (or is that the UCI and WADA vs Spanish Cycling Body case??)
0
Comments
-
-
Contador is the Greatest0
-
Basically he's banned in Italy and CAS have opened the door for the UCI and WADA to go after him. As well as the Spanish fed.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
From what I read Valverde tried to appeal the Italian ban, the UCI tried to jump onto the appeal to get the ban extended. The CAS said the UCI was beyond its remit but the court agreed with the Italian ban.
Later this week a new hearing will see WADA try to ban Valverde and put pressure on the Royal Cycling Federation of Spain to act, rather than cover-up.
Both hearings are distinct things.0 -
Thanks for that iain - appreciate it!0
-
iainf72 wrote:SpaceJunk wrote:Thanks for that iain - appreciate it!
So, is anyone going to be awfully sad about it.
I mean, it's lucky he's not won anything big since he should've been banned from racing. Has he?
Not going to shed any tears.
Couple of points I don't quite understand though, who does the responsibility for banning a rider in the manner we saw Vino, Millar et al banned rest with? Is it the UCI? WADA? The riders own federation? Is the only reason he isn't already banned because we're talking about a DNA match on a sample in a judicial enquiry rather than a sanctioned doping control?
Secondly, was there anything to stop ASO etc and other national federations applying CONI's ban to their own jurisdiction and why has this not happened already?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
That's the mess of Puerto, some get banned but others have been untouched. Basically if your Spanish you can dope to your heart's (dis)content because the authorities have got your back; if you're Italian then chances are you've been banned.
Many of us might feel uncomfortable with Scarponi in blue right now but at least "Zapatero" served his ban. The likes of "L.L.", "A.C." and "Valv.Piti" have not had the same treatment.0 -
iainf72 wrote:SpaceJunk wrote:Thanks for that iain - appreciate it!
So, is anyone going to be awfully sad about it.
I mean, it's lucky he's not won anything big since he should've been banned from racing. Has he?
I can think of one poster who will be upset about it ! ..................buy hey he is an exciting true champion right ?Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Couple of points I don't quite understand though, who does the responsibility for banning a rider in the manner we saw Vino, Millar et al banned rest with? Is it the UCI? WADA? The riders own federation?
It's the riders national ADA which can ban them in conjunction with the national federation.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Couple of points I don't quite understand though, who does the responsibility for banning a rider in the manner we saw Vino, Millar et al banned rest with? Is it the UCI? WADA? The riders own federation?
It's the riders national ADA which can ban them in conjunction with the national federation.
That would explain it... Does Spain have an anti doping authority? And if so where can I apply to "work" there?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:
That would explain it... Does Spain have an anti doping authority? And if so where can I apply to "work" there?
To be fair, it was the Spanish legal system which said they could not use the evidence for sporting sanctions. The Italians and (chequebook justice) Germans got access to the blood samples through criminal investigations rather than sporting process.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
The Spaniards said the use of the samples was not allowed whilst a judicial investigation was ongoing, as their use in a sports case could prejudice the criminal/civil case in Spain.
The idea behind this was that once the Puerto case was wrapped up then anyone would be free to use the evidence to bring sporting prosecutions, eg for doping and cheating. But the Spanish Federation has not followed this up, it's simply sat on the evidence.0 -
The UCI formally request the riders own federation to implement a ban since the national federation is the licence issuing body.disgruntledgoat wrote:who does the responsibility for banning a rider in the manner we saw Vino, Millar et al banned rest with?
The Spanish Federation have basically closed the door on Puerto and tried to sweep it all under the carpet. Their stance is that it was not actually illegal to dope in Spain when the Puerto case was first started (although it is now), hence the riders have nothing to answer for. The suspicions are that if they ever took the lid off Puerto completely, there'd be Spanish football teams and tennis players with some uncomfortable questions to answer.disgruntledgoat wrote:Is the only reason he isn't already banned because we're talking about a DNA match on a sample in a judicial enquiry rather than a sanctioned doping control?
CONI (the Italian Olympic Committee) have been pushing for a ban on Valverde (no doubt thinking it rather unfair that only Italian riders have been sanctioned so far) and got hold of the evidence from the Spanish authorities almost by mistake (the Spanish prosecutor in charge of the Puerto enquiry was on holiday at the time and his deputy released the evidence much to his bosses' displeasure).
No doubt a legal minefield with riders able to to cite breaches of their human rights etc - but this is why UCI/WADA have appealed to CAS to have Valverde's Italian ban extended to a complete ban on competition.disgruntledgoat wrote:Secondly, was there anything to stop ASO etc and other national federations applying CONI's ban to their own jurisdiction and why has this not happened already?0 -
Kléber wrote:The Spaniards said the use of the samples was not allowed whilst a judicial investigation was ongoing, as their use in a sports case could prejudice the criminal/civil case in Spain.
But also, as there was no criminal case to answer, the "evidence" really belongs to Fuentes now, making things even more difficult.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Maybe they'll ban him worldwide from the next hearing and from 2011 we'll only see him ride in Italy where his ban will have expired. That would be fair.
Unless of course you're Cadel Evans who might be a double GT winner by the end of May...___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
One wonders why the UCI haven't escalated the situation with the Spanish Federation. They are making a mockery of any anti-doping stance the UCI has taken.Steps towards expulsion, or banning of Spanish riders from UCI events should concentrate a few minds.
That the Valverde situation has dragged on without resolution for so long is, frankly, embarrassing for the sport.0 -
what would happen if the UCI went global with the ban on Valv? His ban finishes in Italy in May 2011 but the 2 year ban a doping offense attracts will never have been fully enforced if the UCI only enforce it globally to May 2011 and if they apply it for two full years then that would mean he's been banned for well over 2 years in Italy, would it mean he could race in Italy at least by May 2011 ;-)?
I reckon he's still one of the best in the world clean as a whistle, but he should be banned, quietly.0 -
Kléber wrote:That's the mess of Puerto, some get banned but others have been untouched. Basically if your Spanish you can dope to your heart's (dis)content because the authorities have got your back; if you're Italian then chances are you've been banned.
Many of us might feel uncomfortable with Scarponi in blue right now but at least "Zapatero" served his ban. The likes of "L.L.", "A.C." and "Valv.Piti" have not had the same treatment.
Hear hear.0 -
andyp: that's what's happening this week, WADA are taking Valverde and the Spanish authorities to task for failing to act.
Dave_1: the UCI tried to extend the ban but got blocked by CAS on admin grounds, CAS said that the Italians were fine to ban Valverde, in other words the evidence stacks up. Up to the UCI and WADA to put pressure on the Spanish. They could certainly take action themselves, for example to stop recognising the Spanish Federation and so Valverde's licence is invalid. But this would cause a diplomatic row. I'd like to see the IOC threaten the Spanish, this would mean they could miss out on the Olympics and possibly other international sports events,0 -
Dave_1 wrote:I reckon he's still one of the best in the world clean as a whistle.
As evidenced by last year's huge performances.
Can anyone name the Italian riders who were banned simply becuase their name appeared in the Puerto docs and NO other reason?
The question I am thinking of, is: should you only be banned if you have been caught doping or if you had the intention (or presumed intention) to do so.Contador is the Greatest0 -
In a way you can understand the Spanish authorities' reluctance to stick the boot in - it would be a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas.
But without true closure on the whole Puerto business there will always be a question mark over all the riders mentioned in dispatches on this thread, and the truth does have an uncomfortable habit of eventually getting out there a lot of the time...unless one has exceptional lawyers, that is....My cycle racing blog: http://cyclingapprentice.wordpress.com/
If you live in or near Sussex, check this out:
http://ontherivet.ning.com/0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Can anyone name the Italian riders who were banned simply becuase their name appeared in the Puerto docs and NO other reason?
The question I am thinking of, is: should you only be banned if you have been caught doping or if you had the intention (or presumed intention) to do so.
Michele Scarponi? His name appeared, he confessed.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Yes. Scarponi and Basso.frenchfighter wrote:Can anyone name the Italian riders who were banned simply becuase their name appeared in the Puerto docs and NO other reason?0 -
But Valverde wasn't banned for that reason. He was banned because the DNA in a saliva sample taken at the 2008 Tour De France matched that of one of the blood bags recovered from Fuentes premises. He claimed the match arose becuase the Fuentes sample hadn't been stored correctly...frenchfighter wrote:Dave_1 wrote:I reckon he's still one of the best in the world clean as a whistle.
As evidenced by last year's huge performances.
Can anyone name the Italian riders who were banned simply becuase their name appeared in the Puerto docs and NO other reason?
.
Please present evidence Valverde was clean last year."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
If someone confessed to taking drugs then you should ban them. IMO, you cannot ban someone if their name appears on a piece of paper but they have had no positives or hasn't confessed. If you think someone is guilty without those then you are judging on character and tenuous links pretty much which is too subjective and weak.
Also, I don't really think someone should be banned just because a bag of blood is found in a Dr's lab.
Good job the Tour doesn't head to Italy this year...I will look forward to him lighting up the roads with style.Contador is the Greatest0 -
FF, there's a new hearing this week, on Thursday and Friday and it's quite possible Valverde is banned here.
But are you saying you can't ban someone if they don't confess? There's DNA evidence against Valverde that's enough for him to cop a ban in Italy and for CAS to reject his appeal there.
Also note that a bag of blood is reasons to ban someone: the WADA rules specifically state that anyone intending to dope can be banned, it is not a question of waiting to be caught red-handed in competition. So unless Valverde and others can explain why pouches of blood were stored in a Madrid gynacology clinic then this alone is enough to ban them.0 -
Why would you be storing bags of blood with a doctor for any reason other than doping?
The evidence gathered for Puerto has been good enough to ban a number of non-Spanish riders, therefore it should be enough to ban all those Spanish riders implicated.
As to Valverde being clean last year, please. He's gotten away with it for so long, why on earth should he now stop, especially given the riches it continues to bring him?0 -
Events over the past few years suggest that unrepentant dopers only really give up their bad ways once they're forced to by bans that usher them into retirement.
The ASO should just have a quiet word in the shell-like of Caisse d'Epargne's head honcho. They own the Tour, they can disinvite who they like, publicly or privately.
But, having let him ride in P-N it seems they're quite tranquilo about the whole thing...My cycle racing blog: http://cyclingapprentice.wordpress.com/
If you live in or near Sussex, check this out:
http://ontherivet.ning.com/0
